Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrappa vs Sri B Ramaiah on 11 June, 2018
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G. Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
W.P. No.48740/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Chandrappa
S/o. Sri. Munishami,
Aged about 47 years,
Resident of Toopalli,
Kasaba Hobli,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District - 563 101. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. Murali N, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri. B. Ramaiah,
S/o. Sri. Byanna,
Aged about 82 years,
R/o Toopalli,
Kasaba Hobli,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District - 563 101.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kolar District,
Kolar - 563 101.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Kolar Sub-Division,
Kolar - 563 101.
4. The Tahsildar,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Srinivasapura,
2
Kolar District - 563 101.
5. The Sheristedar,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Srinivasapura,
Kolar District - 563 101. ... Respondents
(By Sri. L. Venkatarama, Advocate for R1- Absent;
Sri. R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, AGA for R2 to R5)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the records in RA
No.52/2010-11 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar
District, Kolar and also the records in RA No.112/2009-10 on
the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-division,
Kolar etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.
2. There is no representation on behalf of private respondent i.e., respondent No.1. Matter was listed on 15.06.2018. On the said date also, there was no representation on behalf of the private respondent and after substantially hearing the petition, hearing was again adjourned to this date. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1. 3
3. The contention canvassed by the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority i.e., the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.3 herein has heard and disposed of the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent without affording any opportunity to the petitioner herein.
4. It is further contended that the 1st respondent aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.1995 in mutation proceedings vide M.R. No.3-6/1995-96 preferred an appeal belatedly in RA No.112/2009-10. The said appeal has been considered and allowed without considering the aspect of an enormous and unexplained delay of more than 15 years. That the appeal is also not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice of hearing was served upon him and the counsel for the petitioner filed power before the Appellate Authority on 02.02.2010. Thereafter, without notice to the petitioner, hearing was preponed to 4 22.05.2010 and the Appellate Authority has recorded that the respondent is absent during hearing and thereafter, proceeded to pronounce the order on 01.06.2010.
6. It is submitted that there is no dispute regarding the issuance of the hearing notice. Though served, the opportunity afforded to the petitioner is farcical and is a mere eyewash. Aggrieved by ex-parte order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in RA No.52/2010-11 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, the 2nd respondent herein. Without considering the aspect of the delay, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner was pleased to reject the appeal. Learned counsel would draw the attention of the Court to Annexure-G - the order sheet maintained before the Assistant Commissioner. On perusal of the same the facts stated by the petitioner turn out to be correct. It is apparent that hearing has been advanced without notice and the order sheet also does not disclose any fact as to 5 whether the petitioner was served with notice of the preponement.
7. On perusal of Annexure-K, it is apparent that the Appellate Authority - Deputy Commissioner has also not considered that aspect of inordinate and unexplained delay, on the part of the respondents in approaching the authorities. Hence, orders are liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. The orders at Annexures - H and K are quashed. Matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the appeal in RA No.112/2009-10 and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The Assistant Commissioner shall issue notice to both the parties by registered post with acknowledgment due and thereafter, proceed with the matter after completion of service of notice and hear and dispose of the case in accordance with law.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE VBS/NMS