Revenue-entry claims on remand must be reconsidered independently, without influence from prior observations.

The appeals challenged the writ court’s common order dated 17 November 2015 in W.P. No. 28490/2015 and W.P. No. 15094/2015.

The Deputy Commissioner had allowed a revision petition, set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order, and remanded the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh enquiry based on the civil court’s decision. The writ court set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order. The dispute concerns revenue entries for land in Sy. No. 11, measuring 5 acres 28 guntas, at Hanumanahalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk.

1. Whether the writ court’s order should be modified to provide for fresh consideration by the Assistant Commissioner of the parties’ claims to revenue entries

2. Whether the Assistant Commissioner should decide the matter without being influenced by observations in the impugned writ order and after allowing the parties to raise their contentions

The appeals were brought under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, as stated in the appeal cause title.

The court’s operative approach was to leave the matter for determination by the Assistant Commissioner in accordance with law, while preserving the parties’ opportunity to raise all factual and legal contentions and requiring that the authority not be influenced by observations in the impugned order.

The Division Bench did not determine the parties’ competing claims to the revenue entries. It considered it appropriate for the Assistant Commissioner to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by the writ court’s observations.

It therefore modified the impugned order to preserve both the Assistant Commissioner’s task of deciding the matter and the parties’ ability to advance their contentions.

The parties were directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner on 27 October 2026.