Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It is in this background a writ petition came to be filed before this Court by Bhagyamma, W/o Papachar and Ramakrishna S/o Anjinappa, in WP.No.10247/2007, wherein their prayer was for implementation of order dated 3.6.2005 of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North in RA.Nos.319/2003-04 and 424/2004-05. This writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 2.7.2007 in directing the authorities to comply with the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 3.6.2005. It is stated that even after the order in WP.No.10247/2007 except removing the name of Government from RTC for long time nothing was done by the authorities till 23.3.2010, on which day a further notice was issued in proceedings No.RRT(1) NA.CR.177/2009-10 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, under Section 136(3) of the Act to Ramakrishna and Bhagyamma through GPA Holder Abbas Ali Bohra. It is stated that even this notice was not pursued. Thereafter, one more notice was issued on 27.9.2012 in proceedings No.RRT/1/NA/CR/177/2009-10 from the office of Special Deputy Commissioner, East/Anekal Taluk/Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluks Office, calling upon Ramakrishna and Bhagyamma to produce several documents.

- 10 -

No.RRT/J/301/2014-15, dated 6.1.2015. It is this order of Tahsildar which was subject matter of challenge in WP.Nos.9540-41/2015 by petitioners herein.

10. In said WP.Nos.9540-41/2015, on 28.4.2015 when it was taken up for consideration, it is observed that the petitioners therein have chosen two forums, one by filing the said writ petitions before this Court and simultaneously filing Appeal Nos.452/2014-15 and 453/2014-15 before the Assistant Commissioner in challenge to the order of Tahsildar dated 16.12.2014 in proceedings No.RRT(Jala) CR.301/2014-15, which order is at Annexure-R23 in the present proceedings. Accordingly, the order of status-quo which was granted earlier was vacated and the parties were directed to prosecute the Appeals Nos.452 and 453 of 2014- 15 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner.

- 12 -

by competent officers, who have subsequently been posted as Deputy Commissioners and thereafter to dispose of the disputes between the parties afresh after hearing them.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after dismissal of the appeal filed by them in RA(BNA)No.452/2014-15 and RA(BNA)453/2014-15 by order dated 08.06.2015 after disposal of WP Nos.9540- 41/2015 by order dated 17.03.2016, they preferred two revision petitions which are in Revenue Misc.No.103/2015- 16 and Revenue Misc.No.104/15-16. Simultaneously, pursuant to the order of this Court in WP Nos. 9540- 41/2015, the Deputy Commissioner took up proceedings in RRT(2)(e) CR 177/09-10 for reconsideration and these three matters are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by order dated 31.08.2016 which is the subject matter of challenge by the petitioners in these writ petitions. Though in the cause title to the order at Annexure-A there is a reference to RRT(2)(3)CR 17910 and connected with Revision Misc.103 and 104/15-16, it is seen that the order is

- 13 -

confined to only RRT 177/09-10 whereas Revision Misc.Nos.103 and 104 are not at all considered. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners in R.Misc.Nos.103-104/15-16 filed applications for impleading in RRT 177/09-10. As could be seen from page Nos.5 and 6 of the order at Annexure-A, the said applications are taken and they are rejected. However, the proceedings in RRT- 177/09-10 is disposed of by order dated 31.08.2016 and as well as R.Misc.Nos.103-104/15-16 are also decided in this proceedings.