Disposed

Smt. Rathnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024WP/12039/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order holding a land dispute to be of civil nature. The High Court found the order passed without assigning reasons, set it aside, and remitted the matter for fresh decision with reasoned findings on the record.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 04.11.2019 in RA/CR-80/2016-17 set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh reasoned order.

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19454 WP No. 12039 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 12039 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O HANUMAVVA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT KUNIBELAKERE VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE - 577 002

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION DAVAANGERE - 577 002

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR DAVANAGERE - 577 002

¶17

SMT. HOSOORAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶18

4(A) SHIVAPPA S/O BASAPPA

¶19

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶20

KATTALAGERE VILLAGE - 577 601

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19454 WP No. 12039 of 2021

¶22

SRI. GUNDERA KARIBASAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶23

5(A) SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT KUNIBELAKERE VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK - 577 601

¶24

5(B). SMT. KARIBASAMMA W/O LATE KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KUNIBELAKERE VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK - 577 601

¶25

SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT KUNIBELAKERE VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK - 577 601

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S. AGA FOR R1 TO R3; R4(A), R5(A) & (B) & R6 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 04.11.2019 MADE IN NO.R.A/CR-80/2016-17 BY THE R1 AND THE ORDER ANNEXURE-B DATED 04.01.2017 MADE IN NO.R.A/CR49/2013-14 BY THE R2.

¶29

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

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19454 WP No. 12039 of 2021

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶33

In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 04.11.2019 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 in RA/CR-80/2016-17 and the order dated 04.01.2017 (AnnexureB) passed by respondent No.2 in RA/CR-49/2013-14.

¶34

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by respondent No.1 is non est on the ground that no reasons have been assigned by the respondent No.1.

¶35

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned orders and submitted that the matter is of civil nature and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the respondent No.1 is just and proper.

¶36

In the backdrop of these submissions, I have carefully examined the impugned order dated 04.11.2019 by respondent No.1. After analysing the entire factual aspects on record, the respondent No.1 has formed points for determination in the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:19454 WP No. 12039 of 2021

¶39

matter, however, without giving reasons has arrived at the conclusion that the matter is of civil nature.

¶40

It is well settled principle of law that reasons are hallmark of decisions and therefore, as no reasons are forthcoming in respect of the decision arrived at by respondent No.1, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and accordingly, the order dated 04.11.2019 in case No. RA/CR-80/2016-17 on the file of respondent No.1 is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to pass appropriate order considering the entire factual aspects on record by assigning reasons for the decision that may be arrived at.

¶41

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Smt. Rathnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rathnamma v. the Deputy 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

Sri B Shanthakumar Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt Puttalingamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri S. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.H.S.Anushankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rangeshappa Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri Chandrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner