Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Jagannatha Shetty,Venkatesh
NAGAPPA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
W. A. 1856 Of 1986
Decided On : 08/01/1986
Advocates Appeared :
R.GOPAL, S.RAJENDRA BABU
Circular - Property Valuation - The court held that the authorities should follow and extend the benefit of the court's previous decisions in similar cases, and it is unnecessary for every person to approach the court for relief if a decision has already been rendered by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, interested in purchasing or disposing of their landed properties, challenged a Circular requiring the registering authority to value the property at specified rates, fearing it would affect their interests.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it unnecessary for the appellants to approach the court through Writ petitions, as the law laid down by the court in previous decisions binds all registering authorities in similar circumstances.
Issues: The issue was whether the Circular affecting property valuation should be challenged through Writ petitions, and whether the court's previous decisions should guide the authorities in similar cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The guiding principle for the authorities should be to follow and extend the benefit of the court's previous decisions in similar cases, and it is unnecessary for every person to seek relief in the court if a decision has already been rendered by the court.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, with the court stating that it is unnecessary for the appellants to approach the court through Writ petitions, as the law laid down by the court in previous decisions binds all registering authorities in similar circumstances.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated April 2, 1986 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W. P. No. 2518 of 1986. The petitioners therein are some persons interested either in purchasing or disposing of their landed properties. They apprehend that the Circular issued by the second respondent, which has been filed as Annexure 'b' to the Writ Petition, requiring the registering authority to value the property at the rates mentioned therein would affect their interest, if any registration is to be made. The case of the appellants is that similar Circular has been held to be invalid by several decisions of this Court and in particular the decisions of this court in M. G. Kulkarni -v.- State of Karnataka, ILR1985 KAR 2152 , 1984 (2 ) Karlj341 and Nagaraja -v.- State of Karnataka, ILR1985 kar 4113.
( 2 ) WE have perused the said decisions and also the averments made in the Writ Petition. In our opinion, it is not necessary for every person to approach this Court for a relief similar to the one already granted by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. If a decision has been rendered by this court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases coming before them. That should be the guiding principle to be borne in mind in the administration. It is not proper to drive every person to seek relief in this Court. It is indeed the duty of the authorities to extend the benefits of the concluded decision of this Court to all other similar cases.
( 3 ) IN our view, it is wholly unnecessary for the appellants to approach this Court by way of Writ petitions. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, which binds all the registering authorities in the State in the similar circumstances, it is not necessary to entertain the Writ Petition of the appellants. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
