REKHA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondents No.1 to 4. Learned Counsel Sri.Sampath Anand Shetty, has entered appearance for respondents No.6 and 7 by filing a Caveat Petition. Notice to respondent No.5 is not ordered for the following reasons; At the outset, learned Counsel Sri.Sampath Anand Shetty, appearing for the contesting respondents fairly submits that the impugned order dtd. 3/1/2023 at Annexure-E passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, is without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Smt.Susheela, appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the submission made by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. However, learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to the impugned order the name of the petitioner has been removed from the land records and the name of respondent No.5, the vendor of the petitioner has been entered in the land records. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel submits that the entry subsequently made consequent to the impugned order is required to be set aside while relegating the parties back to the Deputy Commissioner.

(3.) Having regard to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dtd. 3/1/2023 in R.A.P.1/2023/B4 at Annexure-E is required to be set aside while remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration.