- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3957 WP No. 302 of 2025 C/W WP No. 905 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.302 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 905 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) IN WP No. 302/2025 BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SHASHIKALA W/O LATE GANGADARAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. NANDAN S G S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KOTHANAHALLI PALYA BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCPAL SECRETARY Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3957 WP No. 302 of 2025 C/W WP No. 905 of 2023 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU - 572 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB DIVISON TUMAKURU - 572 101. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR NADAKACHERI BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT- 572 101. 5. JAYAMMA W/O LATE PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT KOTHANAHALLI PALYA BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT- 572 201. 6. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE PUTTARANGAIAH HEAD CONSTABLE ACB POLICE STATION TUMAKURU CITY TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 AND R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.P.NO.134/2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3957 WP No. 302 of 2025 C/W WP No. 905 of 2023 PETITION AND THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2022 IN R.R.T(a)(THU) 419/2014-15 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION. IN WP NO. 905/2023 BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SHASHIKALA W/O LATE GANGADARAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. NANDAN S G S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KOTHANAHALLI PALYA BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572101. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKUR SUB DIVISION TUMAKURU-572 101. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3957 WP No. 302 of 2025 C/W WP No. 905 of 2023 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDHAR NADAKACHERI BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101. 4. 5. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE PUTTARANGAIAH R/AT KOTHANAHALLI PALYA, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101. SHIVANNA S/O LATE PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS HEAD CONSTABLE ACB POLICE STATION TUMAKURU CITY - 572 101 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.P.NO.134/2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - J TO THE WRIT PETITION; AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3957 WP No. 302 of 2025 C/W WP No. 905 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-L. 2. The present case presents a distressing situation. The petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2022, which is evidenced at Annexure-H, had preferred a revision petition before the respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, invoking jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the relevant statute. Initially, during the pendency of the said revision, respondent No.2 had granted an interim order in favour of the petitioners. However, upon the filing of objections by respondent No.5, the Deputy Commissioner declined to extend the interim protection. Left without any interim relief, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.905/2023. Recognizing the urgency of the matter, this Court, vide order dated 16.01.2023, granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3957 WP No. 302 of 2025 C/W WP No. 905 of 2023 3. It is pertinent to note that the subject matter of the pending revision petition, bearing R.P.No.134/2022, pertained to the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 20.04.2022. Despite the revision being an independent proceeding concerning the merits of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, instead of adjudicating the revision on its merits, summarily disposed of the same citing the pendency of W.P.No.905/2023. This approach not only lacks any rational basis but also reflects a failure to exercise jurisdiction properly. The manner in which the revision petition has been disposed of demonstrates an arbitrary and casual approach, which is neither legally sustainable nor acceptable. 4. Furthermore, it is crucial to clarify that the issue seized before this Court in W.P.No.905/2023 was limited to the non-extension of the interim order by the Deputy Commissioner. The writ petition in W.P.No.905/2023 was filed solely to challenge the refusal to continue the interim - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3957 WP No. 302 of 2025 C/W WP No. 905 of 2023 order during the pendency of the revision proceedings. The substantive challenge to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was never the subject matter of W.P.No.905/2023. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner committed a grave error in treating the pendency of W.P.No.905/2023 as a ground to summarily close the revision petition. By doing so, the Deputy Commissioner has effectively abdicated his duty to adjudicate the revision petition on its merits. Such an approach not only defeats the very purpose of statutory remedies but also results in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is legally unsustainable and warrants interference by this Court. 5. The order, therefore, is capricious and the procedure adopted by the Deputy Commissioner is fundamentally flawed and therefore, unsustainable. Accordingly, W.P.No.302/2025 is liable to be allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3957 WP No. 302 of 2025 C/W WP No. 905 of 2023 6. Having regard to the fact that this Court has granted interim order in W.P.No.905/2023, the execution and operation of the order passed by the respondent No.3 evidenced at Annexure-H in W.P.No.302/2025 shall remain in force till the Deputy Commissioner decides the revision. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition filed in W.P.No.302/2025 is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure- L is hereby quashed and set aside; (iii) Matter stands remitted to respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner shall decide the revision petition pending R.P.No.134/2022 in accordance with law; (iv) Accordingly, writ petition filed in W.P.No.905/2023 stands disposed of; (v) It is made clear that the order of the Assistant Commissioner which is now pending - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3957 WP No. 302 of 2025 C/W WP No. 905 of 2023 consideration in revision petition shall stand stayed till the disposal of the revision; (vi) Both parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the revision petition. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36