IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 20jIQf_'~--._f--._
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE "
AND I S S V
THE HONBLE MRS. JUS'3"IC«E; B.\}.'NASAR;AgT}§;NA,,
WRIT APPEAL N05. 197 1-7272'()'16(K;.R-1iR/*SUiz)
BETWEEN: ' I V 2 S'
1. SR: KC PARAMASHEVAIAEE _ _
AGED AE0m"';:5?'YEARS "
S/O LATE'SRI§-.CI%IE'PJNAPPA H
R/AT KANNASANDRA v.i.Lr,.ASE '
LAKK_F;_:\TAHALIfi;;PQST ' ~
SOLUR HOBLI, 1\5IAG_AD.I_ TALUK
RAN;ANAGAT{AM., .. ' '
2. SR1. K.E,4MAHA:)EVA1A}_.I
AGED ABOUT YEARS
S ,-;o'' LATE SR1," CHENNAPPA
~ _ R/"AT..KANNASANE--RA VILLAGE
' «_LAKKEjN "IALLI POST
' S0LU.R'HoB'LI, MAGADI TALUK
. DIST
V ...APPELLANTS
' {By Sm" GIRTSH CHANDRA 8: GSV ASSOGATES)
SR1 HOSALAIAH
AG-ED ABOUT 68 YEARS
S/O LATE SR1. VEERANNA
R/AT LAKKENAHALLI POST
SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARAM DIST
Ex.)
SR1. SOMASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE SR1. VEERANNA
R/AT LAKKENAHALLI POST, SOLUR I-IOBLI I * I I
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARAM DIST
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RANIANAGARAM DISTRICT '
RAMANAGARA
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARAM SUB-DIVISION
RAMANAG-ARA _ ._
5. THE TAI-IASILDAR
MAGADITALUK
DIST I'
I " ._ I' ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: My R-:_&. SR1 D VIJAY
KUMAR, AGA R3'-:5, RI-E; R2~».SD)
THESIEIVWRITI FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA I>I.Ic;II, Vo0u--RT*~~~AcT PRAYING To SET ASIDE
THE ;ORDER 'PASSEIZI IN THE WRIT PETITION
'' vNvo.2z;_1'''«1 3;__I 14/20O9{I{LR4RR/SUR) DATED 18 /02/20 1 0.
' _I"1ikIe.sa}5;p§;IeT§iIe=.coIning on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, SA13fvMfr{I"I'=.},-delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
” ‘1}!-“‘I.”lISII”Elf)}Z)f3E3.I is filed by respondent’ Nos.4 and 5 in
.I.\’?§/.IP;l\IioS:.24£l13»I14/09, being aggrieved by the order dated
~«I.4:I8I.’2D.2OlO, wherein the learned Single Judge of this court
I has set aside the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Ramaiiagaram Sub-Division,
Ramanagaram. in RP. No.138/200708 wherein he
confirrned the order passed by the Asst. Cornrnissior1–er–
Respondent No.2 and remitted the matter to
Commissioner-first respondent for passing fi’esh._or.::le.rs’ in
accordance with law within the time frarned
2. Respondent Nos.1 and here_in’»v =
W.P.Nos.24l 13-1 14/2009 averring:,.’lthat the .o1=de_r_:plasseldllby
the Asst. Cormnissionervhas be&en”c.o:11flirmed the-‘lDeputy
Commissioner regarding °e:#1_:_:y’ of rights is
erroneous and that.._the’ Deputy ‘tfommisslioner has not
passed the ordeifiin aeeorda_nce with law being a revisional
authority has no reaslonjs._are_passigned by the first respondent-
Deputy. _ComlfnissiorierA°inl”‘:passing the impugned order.
ieeariaeld singleJudgeaeeepted the contention of the learned
l”‘or’ithe..:Vpetitioner in the writ petition. Respondent
Nos; and.’E3i__and appellants were served with notice, but
lrremained lunrepresented. Learned single Judge after hearing
A eotrnsel for the parties held that the order passed by the
l”~»___”‘:”Dep’uty Commissioner are not supported by reasons and
hpaecordingly. quashed the impugned order and reniitted the
matter to the Deputy Commissioner to hold a fresh enquiry
in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both
–4I~
the parties within four months from the date of production of
the certified copy of the order. Being aggrieved by the said
order. this appeal is filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Advocate appea~ri.ngV:’__’_fo1’1
respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
4. The grievance of the appellants in-this ‘is.x”th_at
the Tahsildar has changed the entriesiin 7..
and appellants are aggrievedVlb_§’~V..the said V the
Tahsildatfvlafteri» of thelvorder by the Learned
Single Jtid.ge;– V E-.ear{_1jed”‘(:ioirer’nment Advocate submitted
supporting théeorderp of tiieldffieputy Commissioner.
.»We have giVen__careful consideration and scrutinised
lithe material on record.
In yfiewv ol”.._ti_ie submission of the learned counsel for
the’Aa’ppelVl.:1nti_. is clear that the appellants who are
ll”~«._’respondent. Nos»; and 5 in this writ petition are not
by quashing of the order of the Deputy
V..__”:”Cornmissione1’~first respondent in remitting the matter for
‘=5…
1
l
5..
fresh enquiry. The fact that the entry has been changed
after the order passed by the learned single Judge is not a
ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge
as the same may provide separate cause of action tofltliue
appellants which has to be worked out in accorda11–ee’VVVx2yi’thI”
law. In View of the submission of the learne_d__e_oun’sel’, iwe’
hold that no ground is made out to :i.nterifieie J
impugned. Accordingly, the appeal is dislaosed oft. ” °
Ed/M
A Edge
Sd/-
Edge
Sik