Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun Reddy S/O Srishail Reddy ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 4 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3550-DB
WA No. 200682 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200682 OF 2018 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. MALLIKARJUN REDDY
S/O SRISHAIL REDDY,
AGE: ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI.
2. JAIKANT REDDY
S/O SRISHAIL REDDY,
AGE: ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCC:AGRI.
Digitally signed 3. HANUMANTH REDDY
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR S/O PARWATH REDDY,
Location: HIGH AGE: ABOUT 58 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC:AGRI.
4. SMT. NAGENDRAMMA
D/O PARWATH REDDY,
AGE: ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC:AGRI.
5. NAGREDDY
S/O PARWATH REDDY,
AGE: ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC:AGRI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3550-DB
WA No. 200682 of 2018
6. VENKAT REDDY
S/O PARWATH REDDY
AGE: ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC:AGRI.
ALL ARE R/O KADACHARLA, TQ. SEDAM,
DISTRICT: KALABURAGI-585222.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAWARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001
RPTD., BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SEDAM,
TQ. SEDUM, DIST. KALABURAGI.
3. THE TAHASILDAR SEDUM TALUK,
TQ. SEDUM, DIST. KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY, GA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN W.P.NO.100483/2013 AND SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 14.08.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.100483/2013 AND ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3550-DB
WA No. 200682 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This intra-Court appeal is filed challenging the
order dated 14.08.2018 passed in W.P.No.100483/2013.
2. The brief facts leading rise to filing this writ
appeal are under:
That the father of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and grand-
father of all the appellants have filed two separate Form
No.11 under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, declaring that holdings of land vide Annexures-A to C.
The respondent No.2 has passed an order holding that an
extent of 12 acres 9 guntas as an excess land. The said
order of the land Tribunal was challenged by the appellant
before this Court in W.P.No.19088/1984 which was re-
numbered as W.P.No.30657/1993. This Court vide order
dated 21.11.2000 allowed the writ petition and quashed
the order passed by the land Tribunal and remitted the
matter to the tribunal by directing to dispose of the matter
afresh in the light of the observations made in the order
passed in the aforesaid writ petition. During the pendency
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3550-DB
of the proceedings before the tribunal, second declarant
i.e. Srishailreddy died on 15.05.2011. The appellants have
produced the death certificate of Srishailreddy. The
tribunal without bringing LR's of Srishailreddy on record
proceeded to pass order. The order passed by the land
Tribunal is against the dead person. It is contended that
the learned Single Judge has not considered the said
aspect of the matter and proceeded to pass the impugned
order. Hence, the appellants aggrieved by the order
passed in W.P.No.100483/2013 have filed this writ appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and also the learned Government Advocate for
respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
Srishailreddy has filed a declaration and during the
pendency of the proceedings before the land Tribunal, he
died on 15.05.2011 and without bringing the LR's of
deceased Srishailreddy, the land Tribunal passed the
impugned order. He submits that the said order is passed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3550-DB
against the dead person. Hence, the order passed by the
land Tribunal is nullity in the eye of law. He submits that
the said aspect was not considered by the learned Single
Judge. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the
appeal.
5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate
supports the impugned order.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that Srishailreddy and
Parwathreddy filed a declaration before the land Tribunal.
The total number of the family members in a large family
of Balareddy is five as on the date when Form No.11 was
filed by them on 10.12.1975. The land Tribunal has come
to the conclusion that the family of declarant is in
possession of 12 acres is in excess of the entitlement as
provided under the amended provisions of Land Reforms
Act. We have perused the order sheet of the land Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3550-DB
marked at Annexure-G, which discloses that Srishailreddy
was present before the land Tribunal on several dates of
hearing, subsequently he did not attend the proceedings
before the tribunal. The appellants have produced the
death certificate of Srishailreddy which discloses that
Srishailreddy died on 15.05.2011. The tribunal without
considering the death of Srishailreddy and without
permitting the LR's to come on record has proceed to pass
the order. The impugned order passed by the land Tribunal
is against the dead person. The said order is nullity in the
eye of law. The said aspect was not considered by the
learned Single Judge. Thus, the impugned order passed in
the aforesaid writ petition and order of land tribunal are
arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds the writ
appeal is liable to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The writ appeal is allowed.
(b) The impugned orders are set aside.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3550-DB
(c) The matter is remitted to the land Tribunal.
(d) Liberty is reserved to the LR's of Srishailreddy
to make an application before the land Tribunal
to come on record, if such an application is
filed by the LR's of Srishailreddy, the Tribunal
is directed to consider the same and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
CT;BN
