Smt.Papamma vs Sri S M Krishnappa
2021 Latest Caselaw 7048 Kant

                         -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                     PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        WRIT APPEAL NO.132 OF 2021 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT.PAPAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR
SRI.PRAKASH BABU
S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.55, 1ST CROSS
TAVAREKERE
BENGALURU - 560 081                  ... APPELLANT

(BY SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
     SMT.BINDU U., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. SRI S.M.KRISHNAPPA
   S/O.LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
   R/AT SALUNUNASE VILLAGE
   KAGGALIPURA DHAKLE
   UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
   BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 062

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
   REVENUE DEPARTMENT
   VIDHANA SOUDHA
   DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
   BENGALURU - 560 001

3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
   REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN
                              -2-


   BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
   BENGALURU - 560 009

4. SRI B.K.GOVINDARAJU
   SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR
   SMT.BHARATHI
   D/O.B.K.GOVINDARAJU
   MAJOR
   R/AT NO.13, WATSON ROAD
   BENGALURU - 560 001                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
    SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-2)
                         ---
     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 IN REVIEW
PETITION NO.350/2017 PASSED BY THIS COURT AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY,
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

With consent of learned counsel for the parties,

matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing

for first respondent. Perused the records.

3. The appellant herein feeling aggrieved by the order

dated 19.02.2009 passed by the third respondent/Land

Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') approached the writ Court

by filing a writ petition in WP.No.14292/2009. The learned

Single Judge having heard the rival claim made by the

appellant and the first respondent herein was of the view

that the Tribunal has not conducted an enquiry by following

the mandatory provisions of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land

Reform Rules, 1974. Learned Single Judge was also of the

view that the records were not at all examined and there

was no proper appreciation of material on record and

therefore, a categorical finding was recorded by the learned

Single Judge at para-5 that there is manifest error in the

order of the Tribunal. Therefore, on these set of grounds,

learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.02.2017 has set

aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remitted the

matter back for fresh consideration. The first respondent

herein feeling aggrieved by the remand order filed a review

petition in RP.No.350/2017. The first respondent urged

before the Court that there is an error apparent on the face

of the record and therefore, the order under review needs

to be interfered with. This Court on 13.12.2019 has allowed

the review petition by setting aside the order dated

21.02.2017.

4. The learned Senior Counsel reiterating the grounds

urged in the appeal memo vehemently argued and

contended before this Court that learned Single Judge while

allowing the review petition has not at all indicated the

error apparent on the face of the order. To buttress her

arguments, she would take this Court to para-3 of the order

under challenge and submits learned Single Judge has not

at all assigned any reason and the order under challenge

does not indicate the existence of requisite ingredients of

Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Therefore, she would submit to

this Court that the impugned order passed in

RP.No.350/2017 is not at all sustainable.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent

would submit to this Court that though the order does not

indicate the reason for reviewing the order, however, the

learned Single Judge has dealt with the case and has rightly

passed an order thereby reviewing the order passed in

WP.No.14292/2009 and therefore, the same may not

warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

6. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel

for first respondent.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the

order under challenge and on perusal of para-3 of the

order, we would find that no reasons are forthcoming to

review the order passed in WP.No.14292/2009. Therefore,

we are of the view that the order under challenge is not

sustainable and matter deserves to be remitted back to the

Court to consider review petition afresh.

For the reasons stated supra, we allow the writ

appeal and the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 passed in

RP.No.350/2017 by this Court, is set aside. Matter is

remitted back to the learned Single Judge.

List the review petition on 24.01.2022 before the

appropriate Court with a request to decide the same as

expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

LB