Allowed

Sri C R Raghavendra Reddy v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2021WP/6401/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the vacation of an interim stay order by the Assistant Commissioner without hearing the petitioner. The court restored the interim order and directed the Revenue Court to dispose of the pending appeal on merits. The vacancy was held impermissible as it bypassed natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.12.2018 passed by Respondent No.1 is set aside; the interim order dated 23.02.2017 is restored; Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within two months.

Sri C R Raghavendra Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6401/2019 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE C.R. RAJAGOPAL REDDY RESIDING AT NO.468/H 9^TH 'K' MAIN, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶11

THE TAHASILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036.

¶12

SRI N. MUNIRAJU,

¶13

S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, MAJOR, RESIDING AT HORAMAVUAGARA VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI,

¶14

¶15

BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 043. … RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI GANGADHAR D.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 VACATING THE AD INTERIM ORDER OF STAY IN R.A.(BE) NO.193/2016-17 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the respondent no.1 vacating the

¶21

ad-interim order of stay granted on 23.02.2017 in case No.RA (BE):193/16-17.

¶22

The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent

¶23

no.1 in case No. RA (BE):193/16-17 challenging the mutation entries made in favour of the respondent no.3 in

¶24

respect of land bearing Sy.No.67/1 of Horamavu Agara village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring 01 Acre 17 Guntas. The respondent no.1 had granted an

¶25

¶26

interim order of stay of the revenue entries on 23.02.2017. The appeal was heard on 21.06.2018 and the case was reserved for orders. The appeal was again heard on 05.07.2018, 26.07.2018, 01.08.2018, 16.08.2018. On 06.12.2018, the respondent no.1 did not preside over the proceedings and on 20.12.2018, the respondent no.1 heard the respondent No.3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 20.12.2018, respondent no.1 has vacated the interim order of stay without hearing the petitioner/appellant. The petitioner has therefore challenged the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the respondent no.1.

¶27

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent no.1 without passing the orders on merits, unilaterally at the request of respondent no.3 has vacated the interim order without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to address arguments.

¶28

The learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the interim order was vacated at the request of respondent no.3 and it was incumbent upon the petitioner

¶29

¶30

to be present before the respondent No.1 and therefore, no fault be found with the order.

¶31

Having regard to the fact that the appeal is

¶32

pending from the year 2016-17, it was incumbent upon the respondent no.1 to have heard the petitioner herein before modifying the interim order dated 23.02.2017. Not doing so would be a clear violation of principles of natural justice, more so when the respondent no.1 had already heard the appeal itself and was expected to dispose it off.

¶33

In that way of the matter, the writ petition is

¶34

allowed. The order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the respondent no.1 is set aside and the interim order dated 23.02.2017 is restored. Respondent no.1 is directed to dispose off the appeal on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondent no.1 is also directed to dispose off the application filed by the impleading applicant and pass appropriate orders before deciding the appeal on merits.

¶35

¶36

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Np/-

Sri C R Raghavendra Reddy v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C R Raghavendra Reddy v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Arudrama Developments Private Limited Vs M Manjula

Sri Suraksha Kantharaj Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumanthappa Vs Rathnamma

Sri. H.M. Jagadish Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

S Peter @ Pradeep Vs Mrs Sivagamy

Sri S Thimappa Vs the State of Karnataka