C.N. Devaraja Reddy, Raja Reddy, Vijay Bhaskar Reddy and Nagaraj Reddy vs The State of Karnataka and Others

J.S. Khehar, C.J.—Through the instant writ appeal, the Appellants have assailed the order dated 30.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P. No. 32735/2010. The operative part of the order rendered by the learned Single Judge, is being extracted hereunder:

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the materials on record, I find that the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded on the basis of the description of the property made in ''E'' schedule to the compromise decree. If the contention of the Petitioners is accepted, then it would tantamount to recording a finding that the description of the ''E'' schedule property in its extent and survey number was incorrect and that instead of mentioning the property that fell to the share of the 5th Respondent as 2 acres 39 guntas, the same was wrongly mentioned as 6 acres 36 guntas plus 2 acres 39 guntas. This Court cannot venture to record such a finding by accepting the contention of the counsel for the Petitioners. If at all there is any mistake that has crept in mentioning the extent of the property that has fallen to the share of the 5m Respondent, the only remedy for the parties is to ask for correction of the judgment and Decree. As long as the Deputy Commissioner has strictly proceeded on the basis of the compromise decree passed, no exception can be found in the action of the Deputy Commissioner. If the Civil Court clarifies the position, t hen it will be open to the Petitioners to approach the revenue authorities and either ask for review of the said order or challenge the same before the appropriate appellate authority in accordance with law. With this observation and reserving such liberty, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants, that in terms of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the Appellants herein have filed an application for correction of the judgment rendered by the Civil Court, specially the description of Schedule-E therein.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, learned Counsel for the Appellants state, that the Appellants would be satisfied, if the writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Civil Court to take an expeditious decision, on the application filed by the Appellants herein.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents state. that he has no objection to the disposal of the instant writ appeal, in terms of the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants.

In view of the above, the instant writ appeal is disposed of, with a direction to the Civil Court to dispose of the application filed by the Appellants, as expeditiously as possible, after the Appellants herein have placed a certified copy of the instant judgment, on the record of the case.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, Misc. W. 1034/2011 and Misc. W. 1035/2011. do not. survive for consideration.