B. Mundappa Rai and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

V.G. Sabhahit, J.—This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 29-1-2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner who has kept in abeyance the order dated 15-12-2004 wherein, the Deputy Commissioner had ordered that an entry shall be made regarding the existence of the new 25 feet road.

It is the contention of the petitioner that an application was made and after enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order to enter into column (11) of Sy. Nos. 51/1A1 and 81/1A1A of Bannur Village about the existence of new 25 feet road. However, without issuing notice to the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has passed'' an order keeping the said order dated 15-12-2004 in abeyance and directing the Assistant Commissioner to submit a report about the persons who are responsible for making false report.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

It is clear from the perusal of the order passed in the writ petition that no final order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, he has kept in abeyance the order dated 15-12-2004, wherein the existence of public road is ordered to be entered in column (11) of above said survey numbers and it is always open to the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner and make an application for vacating the order keeping the order dated 15-12-2004 in abeyance and the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the said application before taking any further steps on the basis of the order dated 15-12-2004. Accordingly, at this stage, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 29-1-2005 in exercise of the power of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it is open to the petitioners to appear before the Deputy Commissioner and file an application for vacating the order keeping in abeyance the order dated 15-12-2004 and substantiate their contention about the validity of the order passed in their favour and Deputy Commissioner shall consider the said application, in accordance with law and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the Deputy Commissioner after filing the application by the petitioners, it is open to the petitioners to work out their remedy, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.