Karnataka High Court
S. Parashuramappa vs The Registrar on 11 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.415/2022(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. S. PARASHURAMAPPA
S/O SANNA SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
2. RUDRAPPA
S/O SANNA SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
3. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O SANNABYLU DEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
4. SIGGADA VENAKTESHAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
5. HUCHAPPA
S/O DYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
6. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
7. EAKANTHAPPA
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2
8. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O SANNA SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
9. PANI DAKAPPA
S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
10. S.C. NINGAPPA
S/O BHIMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
11. KUMBARA GANESHAPPA
S/O SHIVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
12. PARASAPPA
S/O FAKEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
13. LALITHAMMA
W/O SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
14. CHANDRAPPA
S/O BASAVANYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
15. BASAPPA
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
16. MALLI TUKAPPA
S/O PUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
17. CHANDRAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
18. JAYAPPA
S/O LATE BASAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
19. MANJUNATHA
S/O KARIYAPPA
3
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
20. GANAPI
W/O MAHABALESHWARA
AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS.
21. RUDRAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
22. MUTTAMMA
W/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
23. LOKESH KONTEGAR
S/O LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENTS OF
HERESHAKUNA VILAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SORABA TALUK - 577 429. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAGAR SUB DIVISION
SAGAR - 577 401.
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
4. N.B. UMESH
S/O BASAVANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT HIRESHAKUNA VILLAGE
SORABA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429. ...RESPONDENTS
4
(BY SRI VEERENDRA R. PATIL, ADV., FOR R-4;
SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, A.G.A. FOR R-2 & R-3;
R-1 SERVED.
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP
NO.22837/2021 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN WP
NO.22837/2021 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order
dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in W.P.No.22837/2021.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and
also perused the material available on record.
3. Respondent no.4 herein had filed
W.P.No.22837/2021 before this Court challenging the
order dated 23.04.2021 passed by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal
Nos.36 to 53/2021, 54 to 55/2021, 56/2021 & 57 to
59/2020 vide Annexures-D, E, F & G. It was his specific
case that the appeals were heard by a Bench of the
Tribunal consisting of two members, however, the orders
which were impugned in the writ petition were signed by
only one member, and therefore, the same cannot be
sustained in law.
4. The learned Single Judge of this Court having
appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter and
having found that only one member out of two members
who had heard the appeals had signed the orders
impugned in the writ petition, quashed the said orders
and thereby allowed the writ petition and the matter was
remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in
accordance with law.
5. The appellants herein who were the appellants in
the revenue appeals which was disposed of by the orders
impugned in the writ petition have preferred this intra
court appeal challenging the said order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the appellants were not made parties to the
writ petition, and therefore, the said order cannot be
sustained. He submits that though the judicial member of
the Tribunal had passed a detailed order on merits, the
other member who was the Chairman of the Tribunal had
refused to sign the same, and therefore, he had
requested the matters to be listed before the Full Bench
of the Tribunal. However, he does not dispute the
position of law that the appeals cannot be disposed of on
merits by a single member of the Tribunal.
7. Since the learned Counsel for the appellant had
made a submission that the appellants were not parties
to the writ petition, and therefore, the order passed by
the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, we have
given an opportunity of hearing to the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellants has not
disputed the position of law that the single member of
the Tribunal cannot dispose of the appeals/revisions on
its merits. In the case on hand, undisputedly, the orders
which were passed by the Tribunal disposing of Appeal
Nos.36 to 53/2021, 54 to 55/2021, 56/2021 & 57 to
59/2020 by its order dated 23.04.2021 have been signed
by only one member though the appeals were heard by a
Bench consisting of two members.
9. In view of the undisputed position of law that the
appeals/revisions cannot be finally disposed of on merits
by a single member of the Tribunal, we find no good
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge who has quashed the orders passed by the
Tribunal which has been signed only by one member out
of two members who had heard the matter, and
thereafter, remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration in accordance with law. The said order does
not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, and
therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
JUDGE
KK
