The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed under S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order of the single judge dated 23.05.2022 passed in W.P. No. 21453/2009 and grant such other and further reliefs in the interest of justice. The Court observed that once knowledge/notice is not demonstrated, the length of the time lost in laying a challenge to the order granting occupancy pales into insignificance.
Brief Facts:
This intra-court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the learned Single Judge's order dated 23.05.2022 whereby private respondents' W.P. No. 21453/2009, having been favoured the Land Tribunal order dated 30.06.1981 granting occupancy under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the Application in Form 7 afresh.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order has been made in a highly belated challenge to the Land Tribunal order; there is no plausible explanation for the delay brooked in the matter; even otherwise, when there was one of the legal representatives of the deceased landlord on record of the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, the grant of occupancy could not have been set at naught merely because other legal representatives were not impleaded.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents makes a submission in justification of the impugned order contending that when property rights are involved, the Land Tribunal ought to have issued notice to the LRs of the deceased landlord, and in not doing so there is a violation of principles of natural justice. So, contending, she seeks dismissal of the appeal.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that what has been done by the learned Single Judge is only a remand on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties namely, LRs of the deceased landlord, and consequent violation of principles of natural justice.
The Court observed that the appellants are not in a position to demonstrate the knowledge of the writ petitioners about the Land Tribunal proceedings. Once knowledge/notice is not demonstrated, the length of the time lost in laying a challenge to the order granting occupancy pales into insignificance. We cannot lose sight of the constitutional guarantee to property rights under Article 300A. Added the principles of natural justice are often treated as being part of Article 14 jurisprudence and therefore, the impugned order sanctifying those principles cannot be interfered with.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the appeal is devoid of merits.
Case Title: Mrs. Chandravathi & Ors. v Dr K Ravindranath Shetty
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Hon’ble Justice Krishna S Dixit
Case no.: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2022 (LR)
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Holla
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Shweta Krishnappa
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
