Karnataka High Court
Shri.Pralhad S. Acharya vs The Yellapur Taluka Agriculture ... on 5 July, 2021
Author: Krishna S. Yerur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT APPEAL No.100125/2021 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
Shri Pralhad S. Acharya,
Age 57 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.: Bell Road,
Yellapur Town, Yellapur,
Dist.: Uttar Kannada-591359.
... Appellant
(By Shri Samgram S.Kulkarni, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Yellapur Taluka Agriculture
Produce Coop. Marketing Society Ltd.,
Rep. by its Chief Executive,
Shri Subray Hegde,
Age 55 years, Occ: Service,
R/o.: Yellapur,
Dist.: Uttar Kannada-581359.
2. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Forest, Vidhan Soudha,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru-560 001.
:2:
3. The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Yellapur Division, Yellapur,
Dist.: Uttar Kannada-581359.
4. The Deputy Commissioner,
Dist.: Uttar Kannada,
Karwar-581301.
5. The Tahasildar, Yellapur
Dist.: Uttar Kannada-581359.
... Respondents
(By Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, Adv.)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying this Hon'ble Court
to pass an order setting aside the order dated 23.04.2021,
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.101366/2021
in the interest of justice & equity.
This Writ Appeal coming on for orders, this day,
Krishna S.Dixit, J, delivered the following:
JUDG MENT
This Intra-Court appeal by a non-party seeks to lay a
challenge to the Judgment & Order dated 23.04.2021
entered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.101366/2021, whereby a direction has been issued
to the official respondents to mutate the entries in the
revenue records concerning the subject land.
2. The learned Government Advocate on request
having accepted notice for the official respondents points
out Apex Court decision in Shivdeo Singh and others V.
State of Panjab and others, AIR 1963 SC 1909 and
contends that right remedy open to the appellant, who
claims to be a non-party to the writ petition is to approach
the very same Judge by filing another writ petition seeking
review of the impugned Judgment & Order; there is force in
this contention.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant is also broadly
in agreement with the above position of law; however, he
submits that the entries in the revenue records are being
mutated pursuant to the time bound mandate grafted in the
impugned order and therefore, there should be some
reprive so that he approaches the learned Single Judge by
an appropriate proceedings; there is force in this
submission, as well.
In the above circumstances, this writ appeal is
disposed off reserving liberty to the appellant to lay a
challenge to the impugned Judgment & Order in terms of
the decision in Shivdeo Singh supra all contentions of the
parties having been kept open.
To facilitate the availment of remedy before the
learned Single Judge, the official respondents are directed
not to mutate the entries in the revenue records for a
period of four weeks.
The Registry to return the impugned order after
retaining a copy thereof in the file; it hardly needs to be
stated that the period spent in the prosecution of this writ
petition shall be liable to be discounted while computing the
period of limitation prescribed for preferring the petition or
adjudging delay & latches.
Costs made easy.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
