Partly allowed

Shri.Golayya Shivayya Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2021WP/110867/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition partly, holding that a remand order cannot contain findings on facts meant for the QIA to decide. Findings in the impugned order were read down, and Respondent No. 3 is directed to conduct an independent impartial enquiry within two months, guided by Mohan Kumar case law.

What did the court decide?

The findings in the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 are read down. Respondent No.3 is directed to carry out an independent impartial enquiry within two months.

Shri.Golayya Shivayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.110867/2019 (GM-CC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHRI.GOLAYYA SHIVAYYA HIREMATH S/O SHIVAYYA HIREMATH, A/A: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI-581401, DIST: UTTTARA KANNADA.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.R G HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRTARY TO DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENR, SIRSI SUB DIVISION, SIRSI-581401, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR, SIRSI-581401, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS BY

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

THE ORDER OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT UNDER ANNEXURE-E DATED 18.02.2019 BEARING PRAPATRA/VIVA/01//2018-19 ORDER OF THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-B DATED 05.02.2018 BEARING NO.TA.KA.SHI/JATI & ADAYA PRAPATRA/VIVA, BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SUCH OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COST.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Since Sri.C.Jagadish, learned counsel has accepted notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3, there is no requirement for furnishing process fee or copies for serving notice to respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

¶24

To quash the orders by the order of the 2nd respondent under Annexure-E dated 18.02.2019 bearing PRAPATRA/VIVA/01//2018-19 order of the 3^rd respondent at Annexure-B dated 05.02.2018 bearing NO.TA.KA.SHI/JATI & ADAYA PRAPATRA/VIVA, by issuing a writ of certiorari such other writ or direction as in the circumstances this Hon’ble Court deems fit and allow this writ petition with cost.

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order at Annexure-E dated 18.02.2019, respondent No.2 remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for holding an enquiry in accordance with law. However, while doing so, respondent No.2 has given certain findings which ought not to have been given when an order of remand is being made.

¶27

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that respondent No.2 has come to a conclusion that certain formalities have not been followed. However, while doing so, respondent No.2 has sought to appreciate the documents on record and has also given certain opinions/findings and thereafter remanded the matter to respondent No.3. In my considered opinion once the remand order is to be passed by an authority remanding the matter could not have rendered any finding on a particular fact in issue and the enquiry was to be left open to respondent No.3 to be carried out in accordance with law.

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

In view thereof, the findings in the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 are read down. Respondent No.3 is directed to carry out an independent impartial enquiry without being influenced by the findings rendered by respondent No.2 in the order dated 18.02.2019 strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the decision of this Court in W.P.No.111482/2017 in the case of Sri.Mohan Kumar S/o Veeresh Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka disposed of on 10.08.2020 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶30

The submission of Sri.R.G.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner that he will co-operate with respondent No.3 and place all the facts and records before respondent No.3 without seeking for any adjournment is placed on record.

¶31

The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.3 on 30.11.2021 at 3.00 p.m. without requirement of any further notice. The petitioner is permitted to place

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

such documents and records as the petitioner wishes

¶34

to rely upon on that date.

¶35

The petition is partly allowed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Shri.Golayya Shivayya Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Golayya Shivayya Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. S.M. Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Govind Lakshmesh Kamat Vs the Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc

Smt.Mallavva D/O Nagappa Bharnatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajesh S/O Raju Rudrapati Vs the State of Karnataka

Kadirsab S/O. Babasab Jamadar Vs Hameed S/O. Babasab Jamadar

Parashuram S/O Ramappa Bisanal Vs the State of Karnataka