Karnataka High Court
Sri. Palakshappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, P.Krishna Bhat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
W.A. NO.570 OF 2022 (LR)
IN
W.P. NO.43865 OF 2011 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PALAKSHAPPA
S/O KADAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.
SRI. G. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA
SON OF SRI. G. PALAKSHAIAH
CURRENTLY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
HAROSAGARA VILLAGE
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577551.
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SRI. G. MARALU SIDDAPPA
S/O LATE G. KADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT. DOOR NO.3648
9TH MAIN, M.C.C. 'B' BLOCK
DAVANAGERE-577004.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. SUNIL S. RAO, ADV.,)
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
CHANNAGIRI
BY ITS SECRETARY AT CHANNAGIRI
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
3. SRI. KUBERAIAH
SON OF LATE SIDDAIAH
CURRENTLY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
HAROSAGARA VILLAGE, BASAVAPATNA HOBLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577551.
4. SRI. RUDRAMUNI
SON OF LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED MAJOR
HAROSAGARA VILLAGE, BASAVAPATNA HOBLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577551.
5. SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH
SON OF LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED MAJOR
HAROSAGARA VILLAGE
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577551.
6. SRI. KUBERAIAH
SON OF LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED MAJOR
HAROSAGARA VILLAGE
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577551.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)
3
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 08/06/2022 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.43865/2011
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND GRANTING INJUNCTION
IN FAVOUR OF THE TENANT, PENDING ENQUIRY ON THE
FILE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL. TO GRANT SUCH OTHER
ORDER OR DIRECTION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 has been filed
against the order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred
by respondent No.3 has been allowed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that land bearing Sy.No.83/2B, and
Sy.No.83/3 (hereinafter referred to as 'schedule lands'
for short) situate at Harosagara village, Basavapatna
Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District, was
recorded in the name of respondent No.3 as tenant.
However, his name was deleted from the revenue
records. The respondent No.3 thereupon filed an
application for rectification of the pahani entry. The
respondent No.3 thereafter filed an application in
Form No.7 on 08.02.1975 in respect of schedule
lands. The Land Tribunal by an order dated
23.07.1979 granted occupancy rights in favour of the
appellant.
3. The aforesaid order was challenged in a writ
petition viz., W.P.No.4143/1979 by respondent No.2
which was remitted by a bench of this Court to the
Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal thereafter by an
order dated 30.11.1981 rejected the claim of
respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 filed a writ
petition viz., W.P.No.31990/1981, which was
remanded by an order dated 04.02.1982. The land
tribunal after the remand by an order dated
21.01.1986 granted occupancy rights in favour of
respondent No.3.
4. Again an order of remand dated 03.11.2002
was passed in W.A.No.5143/1999. The Land Tribunal
thereafter by an order dated 30.12.2003 rejected the
claim of respondent No.3. The said order is again
challenged in W.P.No.2989/2004, in which again an
order of remand was passed on 08.10.2007. The Land
Tribunal by an order dated 11.11.2011 rejects the
claim of respondent No.3.
5. The said order was assailed by respondent
No.3 in W.P.No.43865/2011. The learned Single
Judge by an order dated 08.06.2022 has set aside the
order of the Land Tribunal and has remitted the
matter to the Land Tribunal to pass a fresh order. In
the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has
been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that he is not aggrieved by an order of
remand. However, it is submitted that learned Single
Judge ought to have appreciated that the order dated
27.06.2012 referred to in para 14 of the order passed
by learned Single Judge was modified by a division
bench of this Court. It is further submitted that order
of injunction granted in favour of respondent No.3
pending reconsideration of the matter by the Land
Tribunal would cause prejudice to the appellant.
7. We have considered the submission made
by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused
the record. The learned Single Judge has inter alia by
referring to orders dated 27.06.2012, 03.01.2014,
04.02.2014 has held that respondent No.3 is in
possession of the schedule lands since 1986.
Therefore, his possession has been protected pending
adjudication of the matter by the Land Tribunal.
Even otherwise, the respondent No.3 cannot be
forcibly dispossessed from the schedule lands.
8. We do not find any ground to differ with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge. However, we
clarify that the Land Tribunal shall decide the matter
afresh in the light of observations made in the order
dated 08.06.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.43865/2011, without being influenced by the
fact that an order of injunction has been issued in
favour of respondent No.3.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
