Karnataka High Court
Augustine Novello vs The Deputy Director Of Land Records on 11 August, 2020
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
W.P.NO.8520/2020 (KLR RR/SUR)
BETWEEN
AUGUSTINE NOVELLO
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
S/O LATE GEORGE
RESIDING AT
LAKE MOUNTFORT SCHOOL,
KURUDUSONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIRONAGAR POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE 560049.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS,
KANDYA BHAVAN,
K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
LAND RECORDS
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
K R PURA, BENGALURU 560036.
3. THE SURVEYOR,
THE OFFICE OF
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU 560036
2
4. THE SURVEYOR SUPERVISOR
THE OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU 560036
5. THE TAHASILDAR
K R PURA,
BENGALURU 560036
6. SHANKER D E
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O V ESHWARAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO 1, 17TH CROSS,
GAYATHRI LAYOUT,
BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD,
K R PURAM,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU 560036
7. CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE SANJIVAPPA,
RESIDING AT
KURUDUSONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIRONAGAR POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560049
8. MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKA ABBAIAH,
KURUDUSONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
VIRONAGAR P.O,
BANGALORE 560049.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT AGAINST THE R-1 HEREIN TO CONSIDER
3
AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL PRESENTED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 27.8.2019 IN FURTHEREANCE OF THE
REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON
13.2.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE R-1 HEREIN
WITH ORDER OF PHODY AND DHURASTH
PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE R-3 AND 4
ILLEGALLY AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW
WHICH APPEAL IN FACT WAS PRESENTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE R-1 IN FURTHERANCE OF
THE ENDORSEMENT DTD.1.8.2019 ISSUED TO THE
HIM BY THE OFFICE OF THE R-2 ADLR ON THE
PREMISE THAT THE SAID APPEAL WAS NOT
MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE R-2 AND AS SUCH THE
SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE
THE R-1 DDLR ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. This Court on the previous date of hearing, directed the learned High Court Government Pleader to secure instructions with regard to the pendency of the appeal. Today, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that it is open for the petitioner to comply with the objections raised by the office with regard to the appeal 4 preferred by the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is seen that the appeal is preferred calling in question the phodi and durasthi, conducted by the 3rd and 4th respondents. It is stated that the appeal is pending before the 1st respondent and the same is not numbered. If that be the case, it was incumbent on the 2nd respondent to forward the papers to the 1st respondent who admittedly is his superior. The 2nd respondent ought to have returned the papers to the petitioner. Having not done either, it is inappropriate on the part of the authorities to squat on the papers which forms part of quasi judicial proceedings. The same in the opinion of this Court, is impermissible. In that view of the matter, the interest of justice would be sub-served if the petition is disposed off by directing the first respondent to hear the appeal preferred by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, the Petition is disposed off. At any rate, the consideration and disposal of the appeal which remains unnumbered shall be 5 within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE rsk/-
CT-HR