- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2292 WP No. 1063 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.1063 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. B.L. GAYATHRI W/O LATE PRABHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SRI. P. SUDARSHAN S/O LATE PRABHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 741, 1ST 'A' CROSS, 18TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J M RAJANNA SETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE COMMISSIONER M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE SPECIAL TASHILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K R PURAM Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2292 WP No. 1063 of 2025 BENGALURU - 560 047. 4. MANJULAMMA W/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT VARTHUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 087. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PASS ORDER IN RA/BE/NO.357/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE -D BY FIXING THE TIME LIMIT; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO REMOVE ENTRIES MADE IN RTC OF SY.NO. 112 OF VARTHUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK ABOUT THE STAY ORDER PASSED IN THE RA/BE/NO. 357/2018 AND EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CONTINUATION OF STAY ORDER. 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 Learned AGA is directed to accept notice. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2292 WP No. 1063 of 2025 2. In the captioned petition, petitioners are seeking mandamus against respondent No.2 to decide the appeal pending in RA/BE/No.357/2018 vide Annexure-D. 3. Upon careful examination, it is evident that the Assistant Commissioner, as respondent No. 2, has misconstrued the scope of the prayer made in W.P. No. 17446/2024. The order passed by respondent No. 2 on 06.12.2024, while disposing of the appeal, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the relief sought in the aforementioned writ petition. In W.P. No. 17446/2024, the petitioner had specifically sought a mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner to furnish certified copies of the orders, as requested in their applications dated 07.09.2022 and 08.09.2023. These applications pertained to orders that had already been passed on 09.07.2024. The writ petition was confined to this limited prayer for obtaining certified copies and did not encompass the substantive issues raised in the appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2292 WP No. 1063 of 2025 4. This Court finds that respondent No. 2/Assistant Commissioner has erroneously linked the pendency of W.P. No. 17446/2024 with the issues raised in the appeal. The order disposing of the appeal lacks merit-based adjudication and has instead been concluded on the incorrect premise that the appeal's subject matter is sub judice in the said writ petition. Such reasoning is clearly flawed, as the writ petition does not involve the determination of issues on the merits of the appeal. The scope of W.P. No. 17446/2024 was limited to directing the issuance of certified copies and did not preclude the Assistant Commissioner from addressing the appeal independently on its merits. 5. In light of the above, the order passed by respondent No. 2 appears prima facie unsustainable. The disposal of the appeal without adjudicating its merits is not only procedurally unjust but also contrary to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to issue a direction enabling the petitioners to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2292 WP No. 1063 of 2025 seek the recall of the impugned order and to secure the restoration of their appeal. The restored appeal shall be decided on its merits by respondent No. 2, uninfluenced by any observations made in the context of W.P. No. 17446/2024. 6. With the above observation, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a recalling application and seek restoration of the appeal filed in No.6A(BE)357/2018 which is disposed of on the premise that the matter is seized in W.P.No.17446/2024. (ii) If such an application is filed by the petitioners, appropriate orders shall be passed after notifying other contesting parties. (iii) After the appeal is restored to file, respondent No.2 shall proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2292 WP No. 1063 of 2025 (iv) The appeal shall be decided and disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37