OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER v. APPANNA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
- Neutral citation
- 2024:KHC:39003
Outcome
Allowed
(i) The writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Land Revenue Act, 1964 s. 136(3)
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 s. 136(3)
Judgment
(BY SMT.CHITHARA B.P, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KARUMBAIAH T.A, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD BANGALORE 560 001
POOJAPPA S/O KADRAPPA AGED 52 YEARS
POOJAMMA W/O M. GOPAL AGED 37 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39003 WP No. 17699 of 2024 RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 100
ALLALAPPA S/O LATE KUNTAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
A. RAJAPPA S/O ALLALAPPA AGED 32 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI ELECTRONIC CITY ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 100
P. MARIAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED 64 YEARS R/AT DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI ELECTRONIC CITY ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 100
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVSION KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 (BY SRI.HARISHA, AGA FOR R.1 AND R.7; …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39003 WP No. 17699 of 2024 NOTICE TO R.2 TO 6 IS D/W V/O/D 21.09.2024) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-1 TO DISPOSE OF RP NO.323/2014-15 ANNEXURE-A WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition filed seeking mandamus against respondent No.1 to decide the R.P.No.323/2014-15, which is kept pending since 2015.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 7. Perused the order sheet, which is pending in the revision petition before respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner.
3. The order sheet clearly reveals that there is clear laxness on the part of respondent No.1 - Deputy - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39003 WP No. 17699 of 2024 Commissioner in not deciding revision filed under Section 136(3) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964. This Revision Petition is kept pending for almost nine years. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is a Senior Citizen and is unnecessarily made to run around the Office of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner. This is a clear lack of diligence on the part of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner.
4. The petitioner has a legal right to prosecute the pending revision petition and respondent No.1 is equally obligated to decide the revision filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 within a reasonable time. The Revenue Authorities cannot keep the revision petition pending for more than half decade. This is a fit case, where mandamus lies.
Operative part
5. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following; - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39003 WP No. 17699 of 2024 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to decide Revision Petition No.323/2014-15 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order copy. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (i) The writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s. 136(3); Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s. 136(3).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.