PUTTAIAH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 22 -11 -2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Ramanagara, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner for default. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that against the order passed by the Tahsildar he had preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act ('the Act' for short). The Assistant Commissioner without considering the case pleaded by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, dismissed the revision petition solely on the ground that the advocate appearing for the petitioner was absent on the date of hearing and that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter, which is contrary to law. It is the case of the petitioner that he was diligently prosecuting the matter, however, he could not notice the date fixed for hearing the matter. In view of that, he could not be present on the date of hearing. Hence, sought for setting aside the order and allow him to prosecute the matter.

(2.) THOUGH the contesting respondents 4 and 5 are served, they remained unrepresented.

(3.) I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.