- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10193 WP No. 32782 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 32782 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT TEJAMANI, W/O LATE C. VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/AT MAHADESHWARAPURA VILLAGE, MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434. PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMAR JC.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001, R/P ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434. 4. SRI MAHADEVU, S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT MAHADESHWARAPURA VILLAGE, MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434. 5. SRI G.K. PUTTEGOWDA, S/O SRI KONEGOWDA, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10193 WP No. 32782 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE, MELUKOTE TALUK, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. VAIBHAVI BHAT., FOR C/R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/10/2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RP NO.691/2016 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN APPEAL (SURVEY) 08/013 DATED 01/12/2015 AS PER ANN-A AND A1 AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. It is grievance of the petitioner that a podi made in favour of his vendor was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner in a Revision Petition filed by respondent No.4 and this order was passed without notifying the petitioner. This contention is, however, disputed by respondent No.4 and it is stated that the order indicates that the petitioner was served. It is however, not in dispute that the petitioner not had an opportunity to contest the Revision Petition that was filed by respondent No.4 and he has neither filed objections nor - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10193 WP No. 32782 of 2024 indicated any response opposing the plea of respondent No.4. 2. This order of the Deputy Commissioner has been confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru on the ground that it is only an order of remand. It is also contended by the petitioner that the podi made in favour of petitioner vendor was subsisting for 17 years and if such an order were to be set aside, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have at least heard the petitioner on merits. 3. In my view this argument of the petitioner deserves acceptance, since the order the Deputy Commissioner indicates that it is an order that is passed without hearing the petitioner's version. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as well as the order of the Deputy Commissioner are unsustainable and they are accordingly set aside. The matter shall now stand remitted to the Deputy Commissioner who shall hear the petitioner and respondent No.4 and hereafter decide the matter afresh. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10193 WP No. 32782 of 2024 4. The parties are represented before this court and they are directed to be present before the Deputy Commissioner on 02.04.2025 to take further instructions. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13