PADMANABHA RAO Vs. THE TALUKA MAGISTRATE/TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK POST, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 2nd respondent having submitted a requisition vide Annexure-B to the first respondent, impugned notice, as at Annexure-D was issued by the first respondent, the petitioner, to appear before him, on 26-12-2012 at 3 p.m. for passing orders with regard to the matter stated in the said requisition (Annexure-B). Seeking quashing of Annexure-A, FIR and also the requisition of the 2nd respondent, submitted to the first respondent, vide Annexure-B, this petition was filed on 2-1-2013. By an interim order dated 15-3-2013, further proceedings of the case pending on the file of the first respondent was stayed. On the date this petition was filed, W.P. Nos. 30466 to 30468 of 2012 filed by the petitioners against respondent 3 and others, assailing the order dated 18-8-2012 passed in R.P. No. 459 of 2010-2011 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District was pending. The said writ petitions have been allowed on 10-9-2013 and the impugned order therein having been set aside, the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner. There is no dispute that the Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, considered R.P. No. 459 of 2010-2011 and allowed the same. The said order is stated to have been assailed by the 3rd respondent. Be that as it may.

(2.) Father of respondent 3 herein has instituted O.S. No. 2057 of 2006 to pass a decree for partition and separate possession and in respect of the properties which have been shown in Annexure-B. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that an interim order directing maintenance of status quo of the suit properties was ordered in O.S. No. 2057 of 2006 and the same operates even now. Petitioners have instituted O.S. No. 247 of 2006 to pass decree of declaration and for possession. 3rd respondent has instituted O.S. No. 170 of 2005 to pass a decree of declaration. The said three suits having been consolidated, are pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Anekal. In view of the aforesaid proceedings, Sri B. Visweswaraiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, submitted that the 2nd respondent would not pursue the requisition submitted vide Annexure-B before respondent 1 and that the 2nd respondent will not consider the matter any further i.e., pursuant to Annexure-D, which was in respect of the standing crop, at that relevant point of time.