Karnataka High Court
Shivarudraiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 February, 2022
Bench: M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
W.P. NO.2758 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIVARUDRAIAH,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
GOPAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT,
MACHOHALLI, BAPAGRAMMA,
BENGALURU, BENGALURU NORTH,
KARNATAKA-560 091.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DC OFFICE
RAMANAGARA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
TALUK OFFICE
RAMANAGARA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.
3. SMT. PREMA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2
W/O KUMAR,
D/O BORAIAH,
K. GOPAHALLI,
MANCHEGOWDANA PALYA POST,
BIDABI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS GOWDA R, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 07.06.2019 PASSED ON
O.S.NO.8846/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CITY,
(CCH NO.10), DISMISSING I.A.No.2 FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFF.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed by second
respondent - Assistant Commissioner dated
10.10.2014 in RA(LKP).169/2009-2010 vide
Annexure - B to the writ petition and order passed by
first respondent - Deputy Commissioner dated
25.06.2019 in RP No.66/2014-2015 vide Annexure -
A to the writ petition the instant petition is filed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the
owner of 12 guntas of land in survey No.273/4
situated at Gopahalli Village, Bidabi Hobli,
Ramanagara Taluk and he got khatha in respect of
the property mutated in his name. However,
subsequently, without any justification it was mutated
in the name of fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the
same, he preferred proceedings before second
respondent. It is contended that the second
respondent without looking into the records has
erroneously on the ground that the petitioner and
fourth respondent were not present when he took up
the matter for hearing has dismissed the same for
non-prosecution. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred a revision before first respondent,
who also has dismissed the revision on the ground
that the petitioner could have approached second
respondent for setting aside the order of dismissal for
non-prosecution before the second respondent.
Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is
filed.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner
irrespective of whether the petitioner appeared for
the proceedings or not the respondents should have
looked into the records, which clearly reflected that
the petitioner is the owner of the property and they
could have reversed the erroneous entry in the
revenue records.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that the proceedings before respondent No.2
was dismissed because none appeared on behalf of
the petitioner at the time of hearing. It is always
open for him to approach second respondent to re-
open the case by recalling the impugned order and
that first respondent has rightly dismissed revision by
observing the same.
5. It is seen from the records that the
proceedings before second respondent was dismissed
for non-prosecution and first respondent has rightly
observed that the petitioner herein could have
approached second respondent for setting aside the
order passed by him and re-hear the matter. I do
not find any error in the same. However, taking into
consideration that the orders have not been passed
on merits, it would be appropriate to reserve liberty
to the petitioner to approach the second respondent
to re-open the case and re-hear him. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed
reserving liberty to the petitioner to
approach second respondent to have the
case re-opened and pursue his remedy
before him.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AG
