Karnataka High Court
Sri N Sundar Raj vs Sri Jaishiva Reddy on 12 September, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:32798-DB
WA No. 493 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2023 (KVOA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N SUNDAR RAJ,
S/O LATE NARAYAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O KADIRENAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI,
PAPATHIMMANAHALLI POST,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHARADA
VANI B AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT 1. SRI. JAISHIVA REDDY
OF S/O LATE BYRA REDDY
KARNATAKA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1(A) SMT ASHWATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O LATE JAISHIVA REDDY,
1(B) SRI. AVALA REDDY,
S/O LATE JAISHIVA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:32798-DB
WA No. 493 of 2023
1(C) SRI. RAMESH,
S/O LATE JAISHIVA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
1(D) SRI. BYRA REDDY,
S/O LATE JAISHIVA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
1(A) TO 1(D) ARE R/A ACHEPALLI,
KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 207.
5. THE TAHSILDAR,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
SHIDLAGHATTA-562 105.
(R3(A TO C) ARE DELETED AS PER THE
ORDER DATED 04.03.2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO A) TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN M.A. No. 1/2013 AND
B) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
DATED 23.08.2022 IN WP No. 6291/2015 (KVOA) ON THE FILE
OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND C) GRANT ANY ORDER OR
ORDERS ANY RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT
DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:32798-DB
WA No. 493 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal calls in question learned
Single Judge's order dated 23.08.2022, whereby private
respondents W.P.No.6291/2015 (KVOA), having been
favoured, the judgment dated 06.12.2014 passed by the
learned Principal District Judge, Chikkaballapur in Misc.
Appeal No.1/2013 has been quashed. Learned Principal
District Judge having entertained the Misc. Appeal had set
aside Tahsildar's order dated 08.01.2013 and remitted the
case of regrant for disposal afresh after notice to the
stakeholders.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues
that there was absolutely no scope for the learned Single
Judge to quash the order of the Principal District Judge
since it was made after hearing all the concerned and that
it had brought about a just result inasmuch as the matter
was remanded for consideration afresh. He adds that
ordinarily orders of remand are not interfered in writ
jurisdiction. He also argues that his client being the
NC: 2023:KHC:32798-DB
WA No. 493 of 2023
tenant of the subject land has been in possession of the
same. Whatever rights he has would be prejudiced by the
order of the learned Single Judge and therefore the same
should be set at naught and the writ petition be dismissed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the official respondent makes submission in justification of
the order of the learned Single Judge.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the provisions of
Sec.3(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act,
1961 prescribes a period of 90 days as an outer limit of
limitation for filing of the appeal before the District Judge.
Apparently the appeal was time barred and that the
question of condoning delay would not arise in the
absence of enabling statutory provision. Right to remedy
is a substantive right and that has to be exercised within
the period of limitation prescribed by the State Legislature.
Otherwise, such a right dies, subject to all just exceptions.
NC: 2023:KHC:32798-DB
WA No. 493 of 2023
4. There is yet another reason for our sustaining the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge: the appellant
claiming to be the tenant of land had applied for grant of
occupancy vide LRM 45A/79-80 in respect of the subject
land. That was rejected by the Land Tribunal. The
challenge to this rejection came to be negatived in his
W.P.No.158/2002 on 11.12.2007. Even the Writ Appeal
No.99/2008 also met the same fate on 08.08.2012. Thus
the appellant does not have any justceable right to
maintain the writ appeal or to have resisted the writ
petition of the other side.
5. The learned Single Judge after considering all aspects
of the matter has allowed the writ petition and passed the
impugned order in accordance with law. The above
reasoning has animated the said order. There is neither
factual nor legal infirmity with which it suffers.
NC: 2023:KHC:32798-DB
WA No. 493 of 2023
In the above circumstances, the writ appeal being
devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it
is, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
