Karnataka High Court
The Chief Officer vs Smt. Vijayalaxmi on 29 July, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10657-DB
WA No. 100494 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100494 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICIPALITY HANGAL,
HANGAL DIST. HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI
W/O. NARAYANAPPA CHINNAMULAGUND,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ISHWAR NAGAR, HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581104.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI DIST. DEVAGIRI, HAVERI -581110,
TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
KARNATAKA
HOLEKOTE VILLAGE, HANGAL-581104,
TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2& R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WRIT
PETITION PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 17-4-2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.103414/2022, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10657-DB
WA No. 100494 of 2023
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
This intra-Court appeal seeks to call in question the
learned Single Judge's order dated 17.04.2023, whereby 1st
respondent's/writ petitioner's WP No.103414/2022 (LB-RES)
having been favoured, following directions have been issued:
"ii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to
consider the representations dated 27.05.2022,
04.06.2022, 24.06.2022, 21.07.2022 as per
annexure-D, E, H and J, respectively, and pass
appropriate orders bearing in mind the findings
recorded by this Court in RSA No.100008/2018.
iii) The notice issued by respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-R5 is of no consequence and respondent
No.2 is bound by the decree passed in
O.S.No.177/2009, which is confirmed by this Court
in RSA No.100008/2018.
iv) Respondent No.2 shall act strictly in terms of
decree passed by this Court in RSA
No.100008/2018.
v) This exercise shall be completed within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order."
2. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently contends that his client was not duly represented in
RSA No.100008/2018 and therefore, there is some lapse
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10657-DB
attributable to him, in that despite he being a party and service
of notice, he chose to remain unrepresented. In all fairness, he
further submits that challenge to the said order mounted in SLP
(Civil Diary) No.22153/2022 was also disposed off as having
been withdrawn with liberty to move Review Petition and
accordingly one is moved in the said RSA and it is pending.
Therefore, he submits, the order passed in the writ petition be
set at naught. Learned HCGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 &
2 also supports the case of appellant.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we are not inclined to
grant indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as ordinarily,
property records are updated in accordance with the court
decree, especially whether or not Records Keeper happens to
be a party to eo nomine to the proceedings. Despite vehement
submission, we have not been notified any contra legal
position. Here, appellant happened to be a party to the said
RSA No.100008/2018 and he was served too. However, he
chose in his wisdom not to be represented. Decree of the kind
would operate whether party is represented by a lawyer or not.
Added, the challenge to RSA by way of SLP also came to be
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10657-DB
withdrawn. Of course, now Review Petition is said to have been
filed and pending. If the review succeeds, there is always due
course of restitution in terms of Section 144 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908. Therefore, pendency of Review is no ground for
not making entry by way of e-swathu for updating records in
accordance with law.
In the above circumstances, this appeal is rejected.
Registry to send a copy of this order to 1st respondent by
speed-post immediately.
Pending interlocutory applications pale into insignificance.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
JTR/ct-an
