UDAYSHANKAR SHENOY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are knowing at the doors of Writ Court for assailing Deputy Commissioner's order dtd. 30/11/2015 whereby Petitioner's RAP NO.50/2015-16 having been dismissed, even in respect of a particular share in the subject property the name of contesting Respondent is also directed to be entered to the Records. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioners argues that, Petitioners cannot be worse off in their own revision and therefore that part of the impugned order which exceeds the frame of Assistant Commissioner's order needs to be set at naught; the said portion in the impugned order has the following text:

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents and the Learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent oppose the Petition making submissi0on in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which they has been structured. They contend that, after all the RTS proceedings do not give title to the subject property and that the entries are made only for the limited purpose of identifying tax payers and nothing beyond. If Petitioners are aggrieved, they should approach Civil Court seeking declaration of title to the subject land or part thereof. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the Deputy Commissioner could not have said anything as to one-third portion of the land in question which aspect was not a part of Assistant Commissioner's order; the Deputy Commissioner virtually as in a sense partitioned the subject one-third by making direction of the kind, and he could not have done it as rightly argued by learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner.