KANAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In writ Petition No. 30558 of 1982 and connected cases, this Court passed an order on 15-3-1983, a copy of which is Annexure-D, quashing the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioners to the Tahsildars to take possession of the lands and to deliver them to the grantees, but dismissed the writ petitions in all other respects with an observation that the order of this Court did not prevent the Assistant Commissioners from executing their orders in accordance with law. The order in those writ petitions became final since it was not challenged before the Supreme Court though there was a grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal under Art. 132 of the Constitution.

(2.) Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner who is respondent-3 herein heard the appeals filed by respondent-4 and 5 without notice to the petitioner and directed the Assistant Commissioner who is respondent-2 herein to hold a fresh enquiry and to dispose of the cases on merits. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner passed orders rejecting the applications for resumption and restoration of the lands. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by both the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner before he passed the orders under Annexures-E and E-1, did not notify the petitioner and did not afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing thereby rules of natural justice came to be violated. The other contention is that the said orders are laconic, tailor-made and cryptic orders intended to suit all occasions irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case with only the operative portion being filled up every time an order was passed by the same Deputy Commissioner. The most atrocious lapse is to be seen to be believed. It is to be found in paras 2 and 4 of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. The names of the Counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents are uniformly the same irrespective of their actual appearance manifesting total lack of care and attention in passing an order as an appellate authority. Simitar orders of the same Deputy Commissioner were called into question before this Court on several earlier occasions.