Dismissed

Smt. Mushkariyamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2019WP/29219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order records the hearing of writ petitions under Article 227 challenging an order by the Deputy Commissioner. The Court directed the second respondent to dispose of the underlying appeal expeditiously within four months, thereby dismissing the writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the second respondent to dispose of appeal RA(BE) 106/2013-14 expeditiously within four months.

Smt. Mushkariyamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

W.P. NOs.29219/2019 & 31531/2019 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MUSHKARIYAMMA W/O LATE NAZEER AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶9

SRI. JAHEED BASHA S/O LATE NAZEER AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶10

SRI. MEHABOOB PASHA S/O LATE NAZEER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶11

SMT. HASINA TAJ D/O LATE NAZEER AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶12

SRI. AZAM PASHA S/O LATE NAZEER AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶13

SRI. YARAB PASHA S/O LATE NAZEER AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶14

SRI. AKBAR PASHA S/O LATE NAZEER AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶15

SRI. SHAMSHID BASHA S/O LATE NAZEER AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶16

¶17

SRI. HUSSAIN S/O LATE ABDUL SATTAR SAB AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

¶18

SMT. SHAMEEM TAJ W/O LATE RAHEEM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶19

SRI. SALEEM PASHA S/O LATE RAHEEM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶20

S,T/ SAMERA TAJ D/O LATE RAHEEM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶21

SRI. MUHEED PASHA S/O LATE RAMEEM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶22

SRI TABREZ PASHA S/O LATE RAMEEM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. UMER TAJ D/O LATE RAMEEM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶24

SRI. AHMED SAB S/O LATE ABDUL SATTAR SAB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶25

SMT. SABIRA W/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶26

SRI. UMRAZ S/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶27

SMT. SABINA D/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶28

¶29

SRI. AMEER S/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶30

SMT. SHAZAD D/O LATE ABDI; SATTAR SAB AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶31

SMT. DILSHAB D/O LATE ABDUL SATTAR SAB AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶32

SMT. GULAB JAN D/O LATE ABDUL SATTAR SAB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶33

SMT. SHAHTAJ S/O LATE ABDUL SATTAR SAB AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶34

SRI. ABDUL GANI @ JHANU S/O LATE CHIKKASATTAR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

¶35

SMT. CHOTIBI D/O LATE CHIKKASATTAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶36

SRI. ASLAM PASHA S/O LATE ABDUL SAB AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶37

SRI. AKRAM PASHA S/O LATE ABDUL SAB AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶38

SRI. NISAR PASHA S/O LATE ABDUL SAB AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶39

SRI. SHAMSHID S/O LATE ABDUL SAB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶40

¶41

SMT. JABEEN TAJ D/O LATE ABDUL SATTARSAB AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 31 ARE R/AT NALAGALLI, HOSAKOTE TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 560 067.

¶42

THE PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A HOLDERS.

¶43

(i) SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O MYNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT BHEEMAKANAHALLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE – 562 122.

¶44

(ii) SRI. GURUSWAMY S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.39, MAJUNATHA LAYOUT ANANDAPURA, T.C. PALYAPOST K.R. PURAM BANGALORE – 560 036.

¶45

... PETITIONERS

¶46

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR C.S, ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND:

¶48

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN AMBEKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 009.

¶49

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTHE (SUB DIVISION) AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR BENGALURU, ARNATAKA - 560 009.

¶50

¶51

THE TAHSILDAR K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE EAST HORAMAVU MAIN RD NANJAPPA GARDEN HORAMAVU BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 043.

¶52

SRI. ABDUL PASHA S/O LATE BASHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶53

SRI. MAHABOOB PASHA S/O LATE BASHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶54

SRI. ALEEM PASHA S/O LATE BASHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶55

SMT. RASHEEDA BANU @ RASHEEDA W/O LATE ANWAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶56

SRI. NAHEEM JPASHA S/O LATE ANWAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶57

SRI. NADEEM PASHA S/O LATE ANWAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶58

MAMTAHAZ BANU @ BANU D/O LATE BASHA AGED ABOUR 57 YEARS.

¶59

SHAKEELA D/O ALTE BASHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶60

MARJANIYAMMA D/O LATE HUSSIAN SABI AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

¶61

... RESPONDENTS

¶62

¶63

(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; NO NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-6, R-10 AND R-11; SMT. SREEVIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7, R-8, R-9; SRI. M.V. NAVEEN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-12)

¶64

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN ANNEXURE-A I.E., IN R.P. NO.45/2015 C/W R.P.43/2016 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED:02.04.2019.

¶65

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶66

O R D E R

¶67

These writ petitions are filed challenging the correctness and legality of the order dated 02.04.2019 passed in R.P.Nos.45/2015-16 c/w 43/2015-16Annexure-A by first respondent, whereunder both revision petitions have been allowed by setting aside the order dated 13.04.2015 passed by second respondent herein in RA(BE) 106/2013-14-Annexure-H.

¶68

I have heard the arguments of Sri.C.S.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Smt. Srividya, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 9 and Sri. Naveen

¶69

¶70

Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.12. No notice is issued to respondent Nos.4 to 6, 10 and 11, inasmuch as, Sri.C.S.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners after arguing the matter for considerable length of time has fairly submitted that petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to second respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits, which has since been remanded by first respondent expeditiously within a timeframe.

¶71

In that view of the matter, this Court would not proceed to adjudicate the rival claims urged before this Court and keeping open all contentions urged by them, a direction is issued to second respondent to dispose of the appeal - RA(BE) 106/2013-14 expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of four (4) months from the next date of hearing, which would be subject to both parties cooperating with second respondent. Accordingly, writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶72

¶73

Smt. Srividya, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalathnama on behalf of respondent Nos.7 and 9 as undertaken by her. Learned AGA is permitted to file

¶74

memo of appearance within four (4) weeks from today.

¶75

SD/JUDGE

¶76

Smt. Mushkariyamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mushkariyamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narasimhamurthy Vs the Secretary

Smt. Lalitha Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Channamma Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Venkateshappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Gayathri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sridhar Maiya @ Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka