B.P.KARIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of the argument, it was noticed that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the application filed in Form No.53 under Sec. 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, rejecting the application. However, in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, only a Committee constituted for the specific purpose for consideration of such application is empowered to consider the application and pass necessary orders. In fact, the original order passed by the Committee is appealable under sub-rule(6) of Rule 108-D before the Assistant Commissioner. It was also noticed that in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 108-D, it is provided that if the Chairman of the Additional Committee is the Assistant Commissioner, then appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner. On this ground, the learned Counsel for the petitioners made certain submissions. However, since no grounds are raised to challenge such an action of the Deputy Commissioner or the State Government, learned Counsel would pray that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and file a fresh writ petition raising all the relevant grounds.

(2.) Accepting the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn while reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action, provided the petitions are filed within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly.