Sri Gangadhar vs The Deputy Commissioner and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 4.12.2009 which is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar (Annexure-E) dated 30.10.2007.

Though contentions have been urged in this petition assailing the correctness of the order on the merits of the reasoning assigned therein. I am of the opinion that the same docs not arise for consideration at tins stage since this petition is to be disposed of only on the legal position in view of the observations made by this Court on 9.3.2010.

In that background, a perusal of the papers would indicate that the parties herein were before this Court in W.P. No. 46112/2003. The said petition was disposed of on 3.4.2006 after considering the rival contentions. While disposing of the matter, this Court had remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur with a direction to hold an enquiry, secure the presence of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 therein and dispose of the case in accordance with law. The said enquiry was to be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner as provided u/s 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. However, the Deputy Commissioner unmindful of the directions issued by this Court had delegated such exercise of power to the Tahsildar who had passed the order dated 30.10.2002. The said order had been carried in revision before the Deputy Commissioner himself who had thereafter entertained the revision. As observed by this Court in its earlier order, the very process cannot be sustained in law since the same is contrary to the statutory provision. Further as per the direction issued by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner has filed an affidavit dated 24.3.2010 wherein the Deputy Commissioner has admitted that such error having occurred by inadvertence, has also indicated that appropriate steps would be taken in the matter.

Therefore, keeping all these aspects in view, the impugned order dated 4.12.2009 and also the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Tahsildar are quashed. The matter is restored to the position as it existed on 3.4.2006 when this Court disposed of W.P. No. 46112/2003. Hence a direction is issued to the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner to take note of the order dated 3.4.2006 in W.P. No. 46112/2003 and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The first respondent shall now complete the process within a period of two months from the date of furnishing a certified copy of this order before him. Until then, the status of the property existing as on today shall be maintained until disposal of the matter by the Deputy Commissioner.

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.