Anneppa vs State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

Anneppa vs State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2013

Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri

                            1



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

           DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2013

                         BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

       WRIT PETITION NO.5825 OF 2013(KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

ANNEPPA
S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
RESIDING AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALAHOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 149.               ... PETITIONER

           (BY:SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   BY ITS SECRETARY
   TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT
   M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
    KANDAYA BHAVAN
    BANGALORE-560 009.

3. THE TAHSILDAR
   BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL TALUK)
   YELAHANKA TOWN, BANGALORE-560 064.

4. SAMIULLA
   S/O. LATE JAHANGIRSAB
   AGED 45 YEARS
   RESIDING AT BAGALUR COLONY
   JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                                       AMENDED AS PER
    BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT           COURTORDER DT.8.4.2013
    K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009
                                         .. RESPONDENTS
              [BY:SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCGP]
                                  2



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R2, DATED 28.1.13,
ANNEXURE-B & THE ORDER DATED 18.1.13, PASSED BY THE
R3, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Smt.M.C.Nagashree, the learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and

5. Notice to the respondent No.4 is dispensed with.

2. The petitioner's grievance is over the endorsement, dated 28.1.2013 (Annexure-A) issued by the second respondent to the effect that the petitioner's appeal as against the Tahsildar's order is not maintainable on merits in view of the compulsory acquisition of the lands.

3. Sri M.S.Varadarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement is without the authority of law.

4. Smt.M.C.Nagashree, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 submits that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the 3 impugned endorsement by way of a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner.

5. Keeping all the contentions open and reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy of filing a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, this petition is rejected.

6. If the revision petition is filed within one week from the date of issuance of the certified copy of today's order, the respondent No.5 Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within an outer limit of two months from the date of its filing. Needless to observe that the Deputy Commissioner shall consider and dispose of the revision petition after affording the opportunities of hearing to all the parties.

Sd/-

JUDGE VGR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court