K K MUTHUKUTTY VAIDHYAN Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was given that the matter would be; finally disposed of today. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we direct special leave to begranted.

(2.) The two appellants applied to the Deputy; commissioner concerned in Bangalore under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act for permission to convert certain separate areas of their agricultural lands into non-agricultural use. The applications were rejected but the appellate tribunal granted the applications by reversing the rejection by the Deputy Commissioner. When the matter came; up before the High court and by interim maridamus, the authority was called upon to grant necessary certificate, the High court was moved by the respondents for quashing the appellate order. The Single Judge declined to interfere and directed implementation of the tribunal's order. The division bench at the instance of the respondents entertained appeals but by order dated 9/03/1987, dismissed the Writ Appeal Nos. 1938 and 1939 of 1986. The copy of the judgment which is made available in the paper book shows two dates for the appellate order, one being 9/03/1987 and the other being the 2 5/03/1987. On looking into the judgment we find that paragraphs 1 to 8 were dictated on the 9th March, and rest of the judgment beginning from paragraph 9 till the end appears to have been dictated on the 25/03/1987. As the' contentsofparagraphs9,10 and 11 would show the judgment of 9/03/1987 though dictated in the open court had not been signed on account of delay in transcription and the court chose to continue the same proceeding on, the basis of the information gathered by it white disposing of some other similar matters. The net result of the Division bench's decision was to reverse what had been dictated on 9/03/1987, and to allow the appeals of the respondents by the order dated 25/03/1987.

(3.) Adequate care and attention have not I apparently been bestowed while delivering the judgment. This impression has been formed on account of the fact that the judgment hasparagraphs 8,9,10 and 11 twice over. This has happened obviously on account of the fact that instead of signing the Judgment on 9/03/1987, or having it separately shown without signing, the two decisions pronounced on two different dates have been clubbed together and a confusion has been created. It took us some time to find out whether the judgment of the 9/03/1987, ended and from where the judgment of the subsequent date commenced.