Karnataka High Court
Sri Krishnadeva V R vs The Chief Secretary on 18 February, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.50958 OF 2012 (KLR)
BETWEEN:
SRI KRISHNADEVA V R
S/O LATE V.H. RANGASWAMY
NO.543, 3RD MAIN, " A " BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-10
REP. BY GPA HOLDER
SRI. VISHWANATH V.R.
S/O LATE V.H. RANGASWAMY
NO.543, 3RD MAIN, " A " BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-10
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI UDAYA SHANKAR RAVI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-01
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF BANGALORE URBAN
D.C. OFFICE, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALOR-09
2
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE-01
4. THE THASILDHAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK
YELHANKA,
BANGALORE-64
5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
ARKERE CIRCLE,
HESARAGATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.)TALUK
BANGALORE-64
6. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE SRI. RANGAPPA
ADDE VISHWANTHA PURA VILLAGE
HESARAGATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH
ARKERE POST
BANGALORE-32
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.B.SATHYANARAYAN SINGH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN REV.PET.NO.434/10-
11 DT.2.4.12 COPY AT ANN-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner is the respondent in the Revision Petition No.434 of 2010 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. The ground urged in this petition is that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is arbitrary. Without issuing any notice the case was preponed at the instance of the respondent herein and the order was passed in his favour and hence the same is challenged. It is further submitted that the revenue entries effected by the Tahsildar got set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and the same was challenged in the revision before the Deputy Commissioner. Further, it is submitted that a suit filed for declaration is pending. The outcome of the judgment and the order in the suit will ultimately govern the case.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent who was the revision petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner did not dispute the fact of preponing the case without notice to the 4 respondent, i.e. the petitioner herein. It is submitted that since there is a long delay in exercising the power, which was rightly rectified by the Assistant Commissioner and hence there is no error in the order and hence the writ petition be dismissed.
4. I have gone through the file papers. From the order sheet Annexure-B1 of the Deputy Commissioner it is seen that by order dated 12th January 2012, the case was adjourned to 29th March 2012. However, the advancement application was made on 12th January 2012 and allowing the application the case was preponed to 16th January 2012 from 29th March 2012. While preponing the same, the Deputy Commissioner should have examined whether the notice was ordered to the respondent therein. Order sheet itself records the fact of preponing the case without notice to the respondent. This is an irregularity, arbitrariness and violation of principles of natural justice. Hence the order of preponing is bad in law. Hence the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 2nd April 2012 is liable to be quashed. Hence the following:
5
ORDER Proceedings in Revision No.434 of 2010 before the Deputy Commissioner is hereby quashed. Parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 22nd June 2013 in order to facilitate the Deputy Commissioner to pass fresh order. All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn