IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA REVIEW PETITION NO.143 OF 2018 IN W.P.NO.35129/2017(KLR-RR\SUR) BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, 4TH FLOOR, V.V.MINI TOWER, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, HOSAKOTE TALUK OFFICE, HOSAKOTE-572 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, OFF: I FLOOR, TALUK OFFICE BUILDING, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
5. THE TAHASILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK-572 114, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT.PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA.) AND:
SRI.KARUNODAYA, S/O.MUNISHAMAPPA, R/O.THIRUMALASHETTIHALLY VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A.KESHAVA BHAT, ADV.) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED: 10.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.35129/2017(KLR- RES), IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The respondent-State in W.P.No.35129/2017 (KLR- RR/SUR) has filed this review petition contending that there is error apparent in the order dated 10.8.2017 passed in the aforesaid writ petition.
2. Admittedly, the aforesaid writ petition is disposed of by order dated 10.8.2017. Subsequent to disposal of this writ petition, the State has come up in this review petition on the ground that the order passed by the Co- ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.35129/2017 is not sustainable in law inasmuch as, the said order is under the wrong premise that there is a statement made by the counsel for the State in conceding to complete the phodi work on time bound basis, which was not the undertaking given by the State through its counsel.
3. In these proceedings before this review petition is taken up for consideration, the presence of learned Additional Government Advocate who appeared on behalf of the State in the said proceedings was secured and this Court enquired with the learned counsel whether she had such instructions to give such an undertaking to this Court.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the submission made by her on behalf of the State is to the effect that under the instructions of Tahsildar, Hosakote Taluk she would state that “the application of the petitioner vide Annexure ‘G’ to the writ petition would be considered in accordance with law”. However, in the order issued the same is recorded in the following manner: “learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions from respondent No.5, submits that application filed as per Annexure ‘G’ would be considered and phodi of the land in question would be conducted as expeditiously as possible”.
5. Now the main question that would arise for consideration is, whether there was such an undertaking given by the State through the learned Additional Government Advocate. With this background, learned Additional Government Advocate was called upon to file an affidavit. The same is filed by her, which would clearly indicate that such an undertaking was not given by her, on the contrary, what was stated is that the same would be considered in accordance with law.
6. This Court is unable to disbelieve the statement of the learned counsel for the State inasmuch as, she has appeared before this very bench in several matters over a period of four months where this Court has observed that she has never made any wrong submission to the Court beyond the scope of instructions which is given to her. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to believe the statement made by the learned Additional Government Advocate who was representing respondents in the writ petition and in that background, is of the considered opinion that the order impugned in the review petition requires reconsideration on the basis of records which are available with the respondent-State.
7. Hence, Review Petition is allowed. The order dated 10.8.2017 passed in W.P.No.35129/2017 (KLR- RR/SUR) is hereby set aside and writ petition is restored to file and the same is ordered to be listed on 25.03.2019, inasmuch as, the entire records is already available before the Court through the respondent No.5-Tahsildar who is kept present before this Court. While listing the writ petition, records in review petition also should be kept along with that.
I.A.Nos.1/2018, 2/2018 and 1/2019 do not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp