Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramesh Bhat vs State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2023
Bench: M.I.Arun
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19247
WP No. 11149 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11149 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH BHAT,
S/O LATE SUBRAYA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/A UMMANTHIMARU,
SHISHILA VILLAGE & POST,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 198.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SR.COUNSEL A/W
SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
Digitally
signed by V VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
MANJUSHA BANGALORE-560 001.
BAI
Location:
High Court of 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Karnataka
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALORE-575 008.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
PUTTUR SUB DIVISION,
PUTTUR, D.K.-517 583.
4. TAHSILDAR,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
BELTHANGADY,
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 214.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19247
WP No. 11149 of 2023
5. MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR M.GOKHALE,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O LATE MADHUSUDHAN BHAT,
R/AT ARPANA, CHARMADY ROAD,
UJIRE VILLAGE & POST,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DK DISTRICT-574 240.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR DESAI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 01.02.2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE IN RAP NO.29/2022 VIDE
ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of
2.19 acres of land in Sy.No.110/3 of Shishila Village,
Belthangadi Taluk. Respondent No.3 had passed an order
in favour of the petitioner by remanding the dispute
pertaining to in whose name the mutation has to stand in
respect of the lands in question to respondent No.4-
Tahsildar. However, at the behest of respondent No.5
herein, respondent No.2 stayed the order of respondent
No.3 by order dated 01.02.2022. Thereafter, hearing has
NC: 2023:KHC:19247
WP No. 11149 of 2023
not been conducted, because of which, interest of the
petitioner is suffering.
2. The interim order dated 01.02.2022 passed by
respondent No.2 is challenged on the ground that it is not
a speaking order and that the same is an ex-parte order
and contrary to the provisions of Section 136 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. However, in the
course of the arguments, the advocate for the petitioner
submits that he would be satisfied if respondent No.2
would decide the matter before him as expeditiously as
possible.
3. This Court in catena of judgments has held that
matters pertaining to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act
should be decided by the adjudicating authorities as
expeditiously as possible. It helps in collection of land
revenue, enjoyment of the property to the fullest extent
by the rightful owner and also for economic growth of the
region as the land can be put to use to the fullest extent.
Under the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct
NC: 2023:KHC:19247
WP No. 11149 of 2023
respondent No.2 to decide the case pending before it as
expeditiously as possible. As no orders are being passed
on merits, I deem it not necessary to issue notice to
respondent No.5. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of
RAP.No.29/2022 pending before him as expeditiously as
possible preferably within six months from today.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PGG
