Karnataka High Court
Civil Procedure and EvidenceProperty and Real Estate Law

A remand authority must record evidence and decide the matter on its merits.

HANUMAIAH vs SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 22, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A remand authority must record evidence and decide the matter on its merits.. HANUMAIAH vs SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Land Tribunal, Kunigal, had granted occupancy rights to the petitioners.

Source reference: no citation

That order was challenged in L.R.R.P. Nos. 3335–3343 of 1990, and the High Court remanded the matter to the authorities for further consideration on 29 September 1999.

Source reference: p.14

During the subsequent proceedings, the grantees sought to lead evidence, as recorded in the order sheet dated 25 March 2015; however, no evidence was recorded.

Source reference: no citation

The Special Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 8 October 2021 did not contain findings based on fresh oral or documentary evidence.

Source reference: no citation

The petitioners challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Source reference: pp.13–14
02

Issues

1. Whether the Special Deputy Commissioner’s order could stand when no evidence had been recorded from the parties and the order contained no findings based on such evidence.

Source reference: p.14

2. Whether the matter should be remanded for a decision on the merits after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence.

Source reference: p.15
03

Law Applied

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to review the impugned order.

Source reference: p.13

It applied the procedural requirement that, where a matter is to be decided on its merits, the parties must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and the authority must decide the matter in accordance with law on the material before it.

Source reference: pp.14–15

The judgment cited no statute or precedent as the basis for this rule.

Source reference: pp.14–15
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the grantees had sought to lead evidence, but the authorities had not recorded any evidence.

Source reference: p.14–15

The impugned order also lacked findings based on fresh oral or documentary evidence.

Source reference: p.14–15

In those circumstances, the Court held that the order could not stand and that the matter required reconsideration after the parties were given a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence.

Source reference: p.14–15
05

Holding

The petition was allowed, and the Special Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 8 October 2021 was set aside.

The matter was remanded to respondent No. 1 for a decision on the merits after recording the parties’ evidence and affording them a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Source reference: pp.14–15

The parties were directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru, on 28 October 2026 at 3:00 p.m.; all contentions were kept open.

Source reference: pp.14–15
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

HANUMAIAHvsSPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Karnataka High Court · September 22, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment