NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. VS PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. VS PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS Case
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 76577658 OF 2017
NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED
BY LRS. & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED
BY LRS. & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
(1) These appeals are directed against the judgment dated
30.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1563 of 2007 connected
with Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007.
2
(2) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are
as follows:
Smt. Pillamma w/o Late Mariyappa and her children
(respondents herein) filed Writ Petition No(s).27230/2002 and
23034/2002 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
challenging the order dated 27.02.1989 passed by the Karnataka
Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the Order of the Land
Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and also the Notice dated 24.05.2002
issued by the Land Tribunal for correcting the extent of land found
in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982. They are the
owners of the lands bearing Survey No(s).4/7, 4/2 and 1/11
measuring 35 guntas, 25 guntas and 1 acre 14 guntas respectively
of Srigandadakaval Village, Bangalore North Taluk. Smt. Pillamma
died during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court.
Her children who were already on record continued the proceedings
before the High Court. Their father, late Mariyappa s/o Channappa
had purchased the lands under a deed of sale dated 30.08.1954
from one Venkatappa.
3
(3) Appellants are the legal representatives of one Nadakerappa.
Nadakerappa claiming to be the tenant of the said lands filed two
applications in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights of the said
lands along with two other lands i.e. Survey No(s).4/14 and 65.
The Land Tribunal by its order dated 30.04.1982 granted
occupancy rights in favour of Nadakerappa in respect of the lands
bearing Survey No.4/7 to an extent of 35 guntas, Survey No.4/2 to
an extent of 25 guntas and Survey No.1/11 to an extent of 25
guntas. Certificate of registration was issued in favour of
Nadakerappa in respect of these lands on 08.09.1982 to the extent
indicated above. Nadakerappa paid an amount of Rs.462/ towards
premium for the grant of certificate of registration. The
compensation in respect of the granted lands was ordered to be
paid to the land owners on 27.11.1984 by Nadakerappa. It is to be
noticed here that Mariyappa was not made party to the said
applications filed by Nadakerappa. In the application dated
31.12.1974, the name of one Ramakrishnappa s/o Byrappa was
shown as land owner and, in another application dated 30.10.1974,
the ownership column was left blank.
4
(4) Mariyappa filed Writ Petition No.12461/1984 before the High
Court challenging the order of the Land Tribunal which came to be
transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the same
was numbered as LRA No.179/1986. The Appellate Authority by its
order dated 27.02.1989, dismissed the appeal for default.
Mariyappa died in the year 1993.
(5) Mariyappa, during his life time, had filed an application before
the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, to rectify the revenue entry
for the year 198990 and to show his name in respect of 29 guntas
of land in Survey No.1/11. However, on 25.04.1992, the Tahsildar
passed an order adverse to the interest of Mariyappa. Mariyappa
filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.
No.196/199293 challenging the said order which was also
dismissed on 26.10.1995. Since Mariyappa died in the year 1993,
his legal representatives filed Revision Petition No.118/2001 before
the Special Deputy Commissioner challenging the order of the
Assistant Commissioner. The said Revision Petition was allowed by
the Special Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 19.04.2002.
Nadakerappa challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition
5
No.20187/2002 before the High Court which was allowed on
01.07.2002. Consequently, the order of the Tahsildar, the Assistant
Commissioner, as also the Special Deputy Commissioner, were set
aside. The order in Writ Petition No.20187/2002 stood confirmed
in Writ Appeal No.3971/2002.
(6) In the meanwhile, Nadakerappa filed a suit bearing
O.S.No.7459/1991 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seeking
injunction in respect of 1 acre 14 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11
of Srigandadakaval Village. The Civil Court granted an order of
temporary injunction in the said suit. This order was challenged by
the land owners in MFA No.319/1993 before the High Court. The
said appeal was disposed of by the High Court on 08.07.1998
restraining the parties from cutting and removing the trees standing
thereon to an extent of 29 guntas. Finally, O.S. No.7459/1991 was
decreed by the Civil Court on 21.05.2003. The land owners
challenged this judgment by filing an appeal, RFA No.1134/2003
before the High Court. After considering the matter in detail, the
High Court has dismissed the appeal on 10.01.2014.
6
(7) Nadakerappa had filed a memo in the year 2002 before the
Land Tribunal seeking correction of a clerical mistake found in the
order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982. On receipt of the
memo, the Land Tribunal issued a notice to the land owners for an
enquiry. The land owners filed Writ Petition No.23034/2002
challenging the validity and correctness of the said notice. They
also filed Writ Petition No.27230/2002 challenging the Appellate
Authority’s order dated 27.02.1989 dismissing LRA No.179/1986
and also the order dated 30.04.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal
granting occupancy rights in favour of Nadakerappa.
(8) Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated
25.07.2007 dismissed Writ Petition No.27230/2002 filed by the
land owners on the ground of delay and laches. The other writ
petition, i.e. W.P.No.23034/2002 filed by the land owners was
allowed and the notice dated 24.05.2002 was quashed by the High
Court.
(9) Nadakerappa represented by his legal representatives
challenged the order passed in Writ Petition No.23034/2002 by
filing Writ Appeal No.1563/2007. The land owners challenged the
7
other order passed in Writ Petition No.27230/2002 by filing Writ
Appeal No.1950/2007. The Division Bench of the High Court
allowed Writ Appeal No.1950/2007 and the order passed in Writ
Petition No.27230/2002 was set aside. Consequently, the order of
the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and the order passed by the
Appellate Authority in LRA No.179/1986 were quashed and the
matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. In
view of this order, the High Court held that Writ Appeal
No.1563/2007 has become infructuous. As noticed above, these
orders are under challenge in these appeals.
(10) Therefore, two questions arise for consideration in these
appeals. The first question is whether the Division Bench was
justified in reversing the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.23034/2002, setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated
30.04.1982 and remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal. The
second question is whether the Learned Single Judge was justified
in quashing the notice dated 24.05.2002.
(11) On the first question, Shri A.N. Venugopal Gowda, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that there is a
8
long and inordinate delay of 20 years in challenging the order of the
Land Tribunal. He further submits that the appellants are in
possession of the lands in question as protected tenants from the
year 1955 and the respondents were wellaware of the proceedings
as early as in the year 1993. Mariyappa, the predecessorininterest of the respondents had not prosecuted the case against
Nadakerappa. Accepting theses grounds, the learned Single Judge
has dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High
Court has set aside the said order in a mechanical manner and has
remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal without any justification.
He has urged several other grounds in support of the order of the
Learned Single Judge on this question.
(12) On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh and Ms. Kiran Suri,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submit that
Nadakerappa filed the application in Form No.7 for grant of
occupancy rights wherein the column earmarked for the name of
the landlord was kept blank. Though there is no provision for filing
a second Form No.7, he filed the same in which the name of the
landlord was shown as “Rama Krishnappa”. It is further submitted
9
that Nadakerappa obtained the order of the Land Tribunal dated
30.04.1982 by playing fraud upon the said Tribunal. The
respondents, having obtained the order by playing fraud, cannot be
allowed to keep the fruits of the said order. In view of the above,
finality of the litigation cannot be pressed into service. In this
connection, they have relied on several judgments of this Court.
Secondly, it is submitted that there is no documentary evidence
before the Land Tribunal to establish the relationship of tenant and
landlord which is a prerequisite under Section 2(33) of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
(13) On the second question, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.N.
Venugopal Gowda, submits that having regard to the amendment to
Section 48A of the Act wherein a proviso was added by Act No.31 of
1995, Nadakerappa filed a memo for correction of clerical error in
the order. The Land Tribunal rightly issued notice on this memo to
the respondents. Learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified
in quashing the said notice on the ground of delay. However,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, have sought
to justify the order of the learned Single Judge.
10
(14) Before considering the above questions, it is necessary to
consider the contention of the learned counsel for the parties as to
the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant
between Mariyappa, the landlord and Nadakerappa who had filed
the application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in
respect of the lands in question. Materials on record clearly
establish that Venkatappa was the original owner of these lands.
He had executed a sale deed dated 28.08.1954 in favour of
Mariyappa which was registered on 30.08.1954. However,
Venkatappa sold these properties again in favour of Sharabaradhya
by a deed of sale dated 07.07.1954 registered on 21.10.1954. As
the sale deed executed in favour of Sharabaradhya was subsequent
to the sale deed executed in favour of Mariyappa, Sharabaradhya
could not get any right, title or interest over the said properties.
Sharabaradhya executed registered lease of deeds dated 29.04.1955
and 23.05.1956 in respect of the lands in question in favour of
Nadakerappa. It is relevant to note here that Sharabaradhya
executed the registered deed of relinquishment on 24.09.1964 in
respect of these properties in favour of Venkatappa. It is no doubt
11
true that when these lease deeds were executed in favour of
Nadakerappa, Sharabaradhya had no right, title or interest in
respect of these properties. However, after the execution of these
lease deeds, the name of Nadakerappa was entered in the RTC. It is
also clear that after execution of the lease deeds, Nadakerappa was
put in possession of the properties as a tenant. The contention of
the learned counsel for the landlord is that there is no contract of
tenancy between the landlord Mariyappa and Nadakerappa.
However, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that
Nadakerappa was a protected tenant as defined under subsection
(34) of Section 2 of the Act.
(15) The expression ‘tenant’ is defined in subsection (34) of
Section 2 of the Act. As per this provision, a tenant includes a
person who is a protected tenant. The expression ‘tenancy’ is
defined in subsection (33) of Section 2, which means relationship
of landlord and tenant. Subsection (27) of Section 2 defines the
expression ‘protected tenant’, which means a tenant of any land if
he has held it continuously and cultivating it personally for a period
12
of not less than twelve years prior to the appointed day. The
appointed day here is 01.03.1974.
(16) Materials on record would clearly indicate that Nadakerappa
was in possession and cultivating the lands from the date of the
aforesaid lease deeds. In fact, this position has been admitted by
the landlord which is evident from the documents produced by the
appellant along with IA No.103954 of 2021. The appellant has
produced the certified copy of an application in Form No.7 dated
27.12.1974 filed by Mariyappa seeking grant of occupancy rights of
some other lands in Sajjepalya Village, Bangalore, North Taluk
dated 27.12.1974. While filing application in Form No.7, the
applicant is not only required to give the description of the land in
respect of which he seeks registration of occupancy rights under
Section 45 of the Act but is also required to give details of the lands
held by him or his family for the purpose of considering ceiling on
land holdings under ChapterIV of the Act. The form of the
application is statutorily prescribed under Rule 19 of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (for short ‘the Rules’). Form No.7
prescribed under Rule 19(1) is as under:
13
“FORM 7
[See Rule 19(1)]
Application under Section 48A(1) for registering as an occupant under
Section 45
To
The Tribunal……………………………..Taluk
Name of the applicant……………………………
Age Profession Place of
residence
I am the tenant/subtenant of the following land:
Name of
landlord/landlord
s and his/their
addresses
Taluk Village Sy.
No.
Plot
or
Hissa
No.
Area
A.G.
Assessment
Rs.P.
Period for
which
applicant
has been
cultivating
the land as
tenant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I have been cultivating the land as a tenant for……………years.
I am interested in getting registered as an occupant of the land on
the terms and conditions laid down in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961.
I, the family of which I am a member, hold the following lands
in my name and in the names of my family members other than
those described above as owner/tenant/or in any other capacity:
Taluk Village Sy. No. Plot or
Hissa No.
Area Assessment Capacity
in which
held
1. Self
2. Wife
3. Minor Children
4. Unmarried daughters
5.
Any other particulars
Place:…………………
14
Date:…………………. Signature of applicant
The Tahsildar should check up the above information with
reference to original records and keep ready for enquiry by the Tribunal.
Note: The information given above, if found to be incomplete or
incorrect the petitioner is liable to conviction and levy of penalties as
provided under Section 125 of the Act.”
(17) In the Form No.7 filed by Mariyappa, he has admitted that
Survey Nos.11/1, 4/2 and 4/7 of Srigandadakaval Village owned by
him; is in the possession of Nadakerappa as a tenant.
(18) Learned senior counsel appearing for the landowners submits
that the document Form No.7 said to have been filed by Mariyappa,
is a fabricated document and that the respondents have filed a
complaint before the jurisdictional police station in this regard. It is
also submitted that there is no statutory requirement for including
the lands owned by the tenant in the said application.
(19) Form No.7 filed by the appellant is a certified copy. Having
perused the said document, we have no hesitation to hold that it is
not a fabricated document. Form No.7 requires the applicant to
disclose the other lands held by him and the members of his family.
When the landlord himself admits that Nadakerappa was a tenant
as early as on 27.12.1974, there is no question of holding that no
15
relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Mariyappa and
Nadakerappa. Perusal of the materials on record, makes it clear
that Nadakerappa was in possession and cultivating the said lands
from the year 1955 and was qualified to be treated as a ‘protected
tenant’.
(20) Now, let us consider the first question involved in these
appeals. As noticed above, Mariyappa was the owner of the
property by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 30.08.1954. However,
Nadakerappa did not show his name in the application filed on
30.10.1974 in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights. In fact, he
did not show anybody’s name as the land owner of the property and
left the said column blank. However, in the concluding part of his
application in Form No.7, he has mentioned that the said property
is standing in the name of Mariyappa s/o Channappa. In the
second application in Form No.7 filed by Nadakerappa dated
31.12.1974 he has shown the name of one Ramakrishnappa s/o
Byrappa. The land Tribunal granted occupancy rights by Order
dated 30.04.1982 in respect of Survey No(s).4/7, 4/2 and 1/11 to
an extent of 35 guntas, 25 guntas and 25 guntas respectively.
16
Mariyappa challenged the said order of the Land Tribunal by filing
W.P. NO.12461/1984 before the High Court of Karnataka. This
Case was referred to the Appellate Authority wherein it was renumbered as LRA No.179/1986. The said LRA was dismissed on
27.02.1989. No steps were taken up by Mariyappa to seek setting
aside of this order. Mariyappa passed away on 15.10.1993. The
legal representatives of Mariyappa filed W.P. No.27230/2002
seeking quashing of the order of the Land Tribunal dated
30.04.1982 and also the order of the Appellate Authority dated
27.02.1989. This writ petition was filed after a long delay of 13
years from the date of dismissal of LRA No.179/1986. The only
reason assigned for the delay was the financial problems and illhealth. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has dismissed this
writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
(21) As mentioned above, it is clear that though LRA was dismissed
by the Appellate Authority on 27.02.1989, Mariyappa did not
choose to challenge the said order. Even otherwise, the respondents
were aware of the order of the Land Tribunal which is evident from
different proceedings initiated by them against the appellants. The
17
dismissal of LRA No.179/1986 was accepted by Mariyappa. In fact,
in the year 1992, Mariyappa filed an application to rectify the entry
for the year 198990 by entering his name in respect of 29 guntas
of land in Survey No.1/11. The Tahsildar dismissed the said
application of Mariyappa on 25.04.1992. This order was challenged
by Mariyappa by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner
which was also dismissed on 26.10.1995. In the meantime,
Mariyappa died. After a lapse of seven years a review petition i.e.
R.P.No.118/2001 was filed by the legal representatives of
Mariyappa before the Special Deputy Commissioner which was
allowed on 19.04.2002. Nadakerappa challenged this order by filing
W.P.No.20187/2002 before the High Court which was allowed by
the learned Single Judge on 01.07.2002. A writ appeal,
W.A.No.3971/2002, filed by the legal representatives of Mariyappa
was dismissed on 02.08.2002. After the order passed by the Land
Tribunal, Nadakerappa’s name was entered in the RTC to the full
extent of 1 acre 14 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11. When
attempts were made by the landlord to dispossess him of the said
land, he filed a civil suit bearing O.S. No.4171/1991. The Trial
18
Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the Nadakerappa.
This order was modified by the Order in MFA No.319/1993. These
proceedings would clearly show the grant of occupancy rights in
favour of Nadakerappa. Therefore, they cannot plead ignorance of
grant of occupancy right on 30.04.1982. There is also no merit in
the contention of the respondentslandlords that on account of ill
health and financial problems, they could not approach the Court
within a reasonable time. We are of the view that the learned Single
Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of
delay. The observations of the learned Single Judge in this regard
are as under:
“After passing of the order of the Land Tribunal,
proceedings have arisen both on civil side as well as on
the revenue side. As aforementioned, the dispute arose
between the parties with regard to change of katha in
the year1989. Ultimately, the matter came up to the
Division Bench in this Court in W.A. No.3971/2002,
wherein it is held that the parties have to get their
matter settled in an appropriate forum such as the Land
Tribunal. As aforementioned, civil suit is also filed by
the third respondent against the petitioners herein for
injunction in O.S. No.7459/1991. Now the matter is
pending in RFA No. 1134/2003 before this Court. In all
these revenue as well as civil proceedings, the
petitioners herein are parties. The appeal filed by the
petitioners in LRA No.179/86 before the Land Reforms
19
Appellate Authority was dismissed for default on
27.2.1989. W.P. 27230/2002 questioning the order of
the Land Reforms Appellate Authority dated 27.2.1989
and the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.4.1982 is
filed before this Court in the year 2002 i.e., after the
lapse of about 13 years from the date of dismissal of LRA
No. 179/1986. The only reason assigned by the
petitioners for filing the belated writ petition is that
because of financial and ill health they could not move
this Court. The said reason cannot be accepted
inasmuch as the petitioners have been fighting litigation
either in Revenue Courts or in Civil Court or before this
Court……………...; The petitioners knew very well the
order passed by the Land Tribunal and the appellate
authority at least in the year 1989, when the revenue
litigation arose. Moreover the petitioners in their written
statement filed in O.S. No.7459/1991, have stated that
the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of
respondent No.3 over 25 guntas in Sy. No.1/11. Thus,
W.P. No.27230/2002 is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches. This Court odes not wish to
unsettle the settled matter by entertaining the writ
petition. Petitioners have accepted the order of the Land
Tribunal and have acted on the said basis for 13 long
years. Now it is not open for them to contend that they
did not know the order of the Land Tribunal.”
(22) However, the contention of the respondents is that the name of
land owner was not shown in the application Form No.7 and that
the order from the Land Tribunal was obtained by suppression of
material facts.
20
(23) We have already noticed that in the first application though
the name of Nadakerappa was not shown in the landlord’s column,
the same was mentioned at its concluding portion. Therefore, it
was unnecessary for him to file the second application wherein the
land owner was shown as Ramakrishnappa. These applications
were filed as early as on 30.10.1974 and on 31.12.1974. The
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is a beneficent legislation for
granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants of agricultural
lands. It is a wellsettled canon of construction that in construing
the provisions of such enactments, the court should adopt a
construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the
Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render
the protection illusory. The object of the Act was mainly to confer
ownership on the tenants of the lands. Section 45 was introduced
by Act No.1 of 1974 w.e.f. 01.03.1974 providing for registration of
occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. Rules have been framed
in exercise of the power conferred under Section 137 of the Act to
effectuate the purpose of the Act. Rule 19 provides for the form of
application and notice. This rule clearly states that on receipt of an
21
application, the Tahsildar shall send extracts of the application to
the Tribunals concerned. So far as the lands in his Taluk are
concerned, the Tahsildar has to verify the particulars mentioned in
the application with reference to the revenue records including the
record of rights wherever they are prepared and also note the same
on the application.
(24) It is common knowledge that most of the tenants during the
relevant point of time i.e. nineteen seventies were underprivileged
and illiterate villagers hailing from remote and farflung areas. A
large number of tenants were lacking from the adequate and basic
necessities of life and were suffering from the acute poverty.
Legislature has recognized this aspect and has cast responsibility
on the Tahsildar to verify the particulars mentioned in the
application with reference to the Revenue Records and to note the
same on the application. Therefore, it was the duty of the Tahsildar
to verify the Revenue Records and other documents and
incorporate/record the name of the owner of the land in Form No.7.
Having perused the materials on record, we are satisfied that the
22
tenant in the instant case has not practiced any fraud in order to
get the occupancy rights registered in his name.
(25) The Division Bench, without assigning any cogent reasons,
has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and has
remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. It is settled law that the
order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of
remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a
proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to
be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits.
Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the
Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of
remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal. We are of
the view that, in the instant case, the Division Bench has remanded
the matter without any justification.
(26) In view of our finding, as above, it is unnecessary to consider
the other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on
the first question.
23
(27) Coming to the second question, W.P.No.23034/2002 was filed
challenging the notice issued by the Land Tribunal dated
24.05.2002 on the basis of a memo filed by the tenant for correction
of the survey number. A proviso has been added to Section 48A of
‘the Act’ by Act No.31 of 1995 which has come into force w.e.f.
20.10.1995 which reads as under:
“Provided further that the Tribunal may on its own
or on the application of any of the parties, for
reasons to be recorded in writing correct the extent
of land in any order passed by it after causing
actual measurement and after giving an opportunity
of being heard to the concerned parties.”
(28) In view of the above proviso, it was permissible for the tenant
to make an application seeking correction of the extent of land in
the order of the Land Tribunal. The proviso was inserted on
20.10.1995 and the memo seeking correction of the order of the
Land Tribunal was filed in the year, 2002. The learned Single Judge
was, therefore, not justified in quashing the Notice issued by the
Land Tribunal on the ground of delay of about 20 years. We have
already noticed that most of the tenants are villagers from remote
areas and most of them are illiterate persons and that the Act is a
beneficent legislation. This aspect has to be kept in mind while
24
deciding cases under the Act. Whether the order requires correction
or not has to be decided by the Land Tribunal, after hearing the
parties. In fact, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P.
No.20187 of 2002 on 01.07.2012 which arose out of the dispute
relating to entries in revenue records, had observed that whether
Nadakerappa is entitled to the entire extent of 1 Acre 14 Guntas in
Sy.No. 1/11, and whether his application for correction is
maintainable are matters to be decided by the Tribunal. This order
of the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by the Division
Bench. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the
learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the Notice. The
Division Bench has held that in view of setting aside the Order of
the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982, the Writ Appeal has become
infructuous. In our view, the matter requires adjudication by the
Land Tribunal on this question.
(29) In view of the above, we pass the following order:
(I) The order in Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007 dated
30.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru is set aside and the order of the
25
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27230/2002 dated 25.07.2007
is restored.
(II) The order in Writ Appeal NO.1563 of 2007 dated
30.12.2014 is set aside and the order of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.23034/2002 dated 25.07.2002 is also set
aside. We direct the Land Tribunal to hold an inquiry on the
notice dated 24.05.2002 and pass appropriate orders thereon
in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
(30) These appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
…….……………………………J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
…….……………………………J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
New Delhi;
March 31, 2022.
Comments
Post a Comment