IQBAL BEGUM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court praying that the order dated 07.12.2010 impugned at Annexure-N be quashed. By the said order, the first respondent has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner herein.

(2.) THE petitioner claims right in respect of the property which is the subject matter herein. In respect of the same, the revenue entries stood in the name of the petitioner. The second respondent claiming right to the said property has sought change of the revenue entries to the name of the second respondent. In that regard, the petitioner having assailed the same, the third respondent has passed a resolution stating that the revenue entries be restored to the name of the petitioner. The resolution is at Annexure-E to the petition. Since the said resolution had not been given effect to, the petitioner was before the first respondent making out a grievance with regard to the same. The stand of the third respondent for not giving effect to the resolution is that a notice had been issued on behalf of the second respondent and therefore, no further action had been taken.

(3.) THE question therefore for consideration herein is as to whether the order passed by the first respondent is justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. As already noticed, the resolution as at Annexure-E dated 23.09.2006 is in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, at best, the request made before the Deputy Commissioner is only seeking implementation of the said resolution. The same does not indicate that the Deputy Commissioner was either exercising the power as contemplated under Section 306 or by way of revision under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. If that be the position, at best the Deputy Commissioner could have only indicated that a stage has not arisen for consideration of the request of the petitioner or should have relegated the petitioner appropriately to seek implementation of the resolution of the Town Municipal Council. Instead the Deputy Commissioner while considering a petition at the instance of the petitioner herein could not have taken note of a suit, said to have been pending which was indicated in the notice which had been issued by the second respondent to the third respondent.