Karnataka High Court
Smt. Khadeejamma vs Land Reforms Tribunal on 4 March, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9276
WP No. 18796 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 18796 OF 2015 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KHADEEJAMMA
W/O LATE K M MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
REP. BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
K. ABDUL MUTHALIB
S/O LATE K.M. MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
(PETITIONER NO.2)
R/AT KANDIGEMOOLE HOUSE
IVARNADU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239.
2. K. ABDUL MUTALIB
S/O LATE K.M. MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT KANDIGEMOOLE HOUSE
IVARNADU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK
Digitally D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239
signed by
KIRAN ...PETITIONERS
KUMAR R
Location:
(BY SRI. K. SHRIHARI., ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL
SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239.
2. CHIDANAND, S/O PUTTANNA GOWDA
MAJOR
REP. BY P.A. HOLDER
MR. PADMANABHA, S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA
AGED MAJOR
R/AT KANDIGEMOOLE HOUSE
SONANGERI POST
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9276
WP No. 18796 of 2015
IVARNADU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK, D.K. - 574 239.
3. SHEELAVATHI
RTD. TEACHER
D/O LATE PUTTANNA GOWDA
W/O CHINNAPPA GOWDA, AGED MAJOR
MANI NILAYA, AMBETADKA
SULLIA, SULLIA TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239
4. SHEETHAMMA
W/O PUTTANNA GOWDA, AGED MAJOR
KOLAMBE HOUSE, CHOKKADY POST
SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VAHEEDA., AGA FOR R-1;
SMT. M.P.GEETHA DEVI., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI. H.V. MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI. RAMESHA.H.E., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL SULLIA TALUK, D.K.
R-1 DATED 30.1.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. The tenants are before this Court questioning the
order by which the Land Tribunal has rejected the
application filed by the tenants.
NC: 2025:KHC:9276
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that
the impugned order passed was not consented by all
the Members as required under the Rules and
therefore, the order is vitiated.
3. He also points out that on 08.02.2013, the Land
Tribunal adjourned the matter to 01.03.2013 for
cross-examination and on 01.03.2013, it was
adjourned to 15.03.2013 and on 15.03.2013, it was
adjourned on request to 18.07.2014, but thereafter
on 18.07.2014, an application had been filed for
conducting spot inspection and this application was
rejected on 12.12.2014 and on the same day,
without granting the petitioners an opportunity to
cross-examine the witness further, the Tribunal has
reserved its judgment and proceeded to pass the
order on 30.01.2015. He, therefore, submits that the
petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to not
only complete the cross-examination, but also to
adduce further evidence.
NC: 2025:KHC:9276
4. Learned counsel for the landlord, on the other hand,
contends that the matter has to be viewed from the
proper perspective as the petitioner had cross-
examined R.W.1. She points out that a perusal of the
deposition would indicate that cross-examination of
R.W.1 was complete in all respects and she also
points out that when an application for conducting a
spot inspection has been rejected, though the
counsel for the tenant was present, no request was
made for grant of time for further cross-examination
or to adduce further evidence.
5. She further submits that having regard to the fact
that the matter had been remanded thrice, there is
no justification to entertain this procedural infirmity
and allow the writ petition.
6. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that an order
was passed on 08.02.2013 in the following terms:
NC: 2025:KHC:9276
"8-2-2013 ¥ÀæPÀgÀt PÀÆUÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ
¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ¯ï ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¹zÉ 1-3-2013PÉÌ
ªÀÄÄAzÀÆrzÉ."
7. As could be seen from the said order, the Tribunal
had adjourned the matter for further cross-
examination to 01.03.2013. This would therefore
indicate that the Tribunal was conscious of the fact
that cross-examination was not complete and the
petitioners were required to further cross-examine
the witness.
8. The order sheet dated 18.07.2014 thereafter
indicates that an application was filed for conducting
spot inspection and for objection to said application,
the matter was adjourned to 01.08.2014. The order
sheet also indicates that on 01.08.2014, the matter
was adjourned due to unavoidable circumstances to
05.09.2014, however, an application was filed for
preponement on the same day and an order was
passed in the following terms:
NC: 2025:KHC:9276
"1-8-2014: ¥ÀæPÀgÀt PÀÆUÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ
C¤ªÁAiÀÄð PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢:5-9-2014gÀAzÀÄ
C¥ÀgÁºÀß 3-00PÉÌ ªÀÄÄAzÀÆqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
F ¢£À PÀgÉAiÀįÁ¬ÄvÀÄ ªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÀ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ
ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CqÁé¸ÀªÉÄAlPÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ °TvÀªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAr¹ CzÀgÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä
PÀQëzÁgÀjUÉ £ÁåAiÉÆzÀV¸À®Ä «£ÀAw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÉñÀªÁUÀ®Ä
«£ÀAw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ:5-9-14PÉÌ ªÀÄÄAzÀÆrzÉ. "
9. On 05.09.2014, the matter was adjourned to
26.09.2014 and on 26.09.2014, the matter was
adjourned to 31.10.2014. Though the matter was
adjourned to 31.10.2014, the order sheet does not
indicate that the matter was called on 31.10.2014,
but there is an entry in the order sheet that the
matter was called on 12.12.2014. It is not indicated
as to how and under whose request the matter was
taken up nearly two months thereafter. The order
that was passed on 12.12.2014 is in the following
terms:
NC: 2025:KHC:9276
"12-12-2014: ¥ÀæPÀgÀt PÀgÉAiÀįÁ¬ÄvÀÄ J ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Cgï ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀgÀ
ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ LJ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹
¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß CzÉñÀPÁÌV ªÀÄÄAzÀÆrzÉ."
10. As could be seen from the above, there is no
explanation forthcoming as to how the matter was
called on 12.12.2014 and on that day, the application
for spot inspection was dismissed and the orders
have been reserved.
11. In my view, this procedure adopted by the Land
Tribunal indicates that the petitioners have not been
given opportunity to cross-examine the witness and
to lead further evidence. I am therefore of the view
that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the
same is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded
to the Tribunal to provide an opportunity to the
petitioners to cross-examine the witness. However, if
the witness is not alive, since it is reported that
R.W.1 is no more, the petitioner may be permitted to
adduce further evidence, if he so desires.
NC: 2025:KHC:9276
12. At any rate, the Tribunal shall ensure that the matter
be disposed of within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and if there is no Land
Tribunal constituted as of now, then the matter shall
be disposed of within three months from the date of
constitution of Land Tribunal.
13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
PKS
