AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, thereby vacating the interim order of stay granted in the revision petition pending before him in revision petition No.229/2016-17.
Present petitioners are revision petitioners in the said revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the Deputy Commissioner. Revision petition has been filed by writ petitioners challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub- division, Bangalore on 06.05.2016 in case No.RA (S) No.328/2015-16. Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is produced at Annexure-C. Present petitioners were respondents 2 and 3 in the said appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. Appeal had been filed by K.R.Venugopal - respondent No.4 herein challenging the mutation order dated 06.09.2002 effected vide M.R.No.6/2001-02 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.18/8 situated at Yellakunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in favour of petitioners pursuant to the sale deed dated 11.12.1998. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal but issued a direction to the Tahsildar to delete all names of private persons found in the RTC and only mention the name of State Government in respect of Sy.No.18/8 measuring 4 acres. It is this portion of the order against which present writ petitioners were aggrieved as they were affected by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner directing the Tahsildar to delete theirs names found in the RTC.
One of the contentions urged before the Deputy Commissioner was that writ petitioners were neither notified nor any opportunity of being heard was afforded to them before passing adverse order by the Asst.Commissioner affecting their interest. The Deputy Commissioner granted interim order of stay on 10.11.2016 but subsequently, without there being any application filed seeking vacation of the interim order by any of the parties, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order Annexure-E vacating the interim order. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petitions have been filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for all parties. As rightly contended by learned counsel for petitioners - Sri Sanjay Gowda N.S., the Deputy Commissioner was in error in vacating the interim order by ignoring the fact that it was writ petitioners who had approached him challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. As the interest of petitioners was affected because their names had been ordered to be deleted from the revenue records, petitioners ought to have been heard on the merits of the matter before passing any order. Vacating the interim stay without there being any application seeking vacation of the interim order and that too proceeding on an erroneous factual assumption indeed calls for interference. Ends of justice would be met if interim order granted by the Deputy Commissioner is restored and the Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of the same on merits as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Interim stay of Annexure-C order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 06.05.2016 shall continue till the disposal of the revision petition by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of the revision petition within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.