IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.2158 OF 2017 (LR-SEC 48-A) BETWEEN:
SMT. GOWRAMMA WIFE OF LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT THORALAKKI VILLAGE, TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK – 563 130, KOLAR DISTRICT.
(BY SRI N. S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR – 563 101.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MALUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY / TAHSILDAR, MALUR TALUK – 563 130, KOLAR DISTRICT.
3. GODDESS SAKAMMA DEITY THORALAKKI REPRESENTED BY MUZARAI, OFFICER, TAHASILDAR, MALUR TALUK – 563 130, KOLAR DISTRICT.
4. HYDER SAB SON OF IMAM SAB, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES A) SRI SYYED AKRAM SON OF HYDER SAB, MAJOR.
B) SRI SYYED JAVEED SON OF HYDER SAB, MAJOR.
C) SRI SYYED WAZEED SON OF HYDER SAB, MAJOR.
D) SRI SYYED NAYAZ SON OF HYDER SAB, MAJOR.
E) SRI SYYED SHAHID SON OF HYDER SAB, MAJOR.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT THORALAKKI VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK – 563 130, KOLAR DISTRICT.
5. B. RAHABAR SAB SON OF SHAIK HUSSAN, MAJOR .
6. BABA JAN SON OF IBRAHIM SAB, MAJOR.
7. INAYATH SON OF KHASIM SAB, MAJOR.
8. NYATHAPPA SON OF KADIRAPPA, MAJOR.
9. SRI JAYARAMAIAH SON OF SUBBARAYAPPA, ARCHAK.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT THORALAKKI VILLAGE, TEKEL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.
(BY SRI S. S. MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL ... RESPONDENTS GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1964 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4546 OF 2010 (LR) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS WRIT PETITION AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.4546 of 2010, respondent No.9 therein has filed this appeal. That in terms of the aforesaid order, 36 guntas of land was directed to be registered in the name of Respondent No.4 herein by the order of the Deputy Commissioner on an application filed in Form No.7. The same was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition was filed.
2. Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner restricted his claim only so far as 5 guntas of land based on the compromise. Therefore, the learned Single Judge set-aside the order of the Tribunal, as well as that of the Deputy Commissioner and by restricting the claim of the writ petitioner only to 5 guntas of land, the writ petition was accordingly disposed off.
3. The grievance of the appellant-respondent No.9 therein is that he has filed Form No.7A for the very same 5 guntas of land. Therefore, his right stands affected by the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. However, on hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. If the case of the appellant-respondent No.9 is that his rights stands affected by the order of the learned Single Judge, the same should have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. There was absolutely no objection to allow the memo. The order being passed without objection is probably why there is a delay of 1918 days delay in filing the appeal.
5. Under these circumstances, we do not find it appropriate to accept the contentions for the first time before the appellate court, when such contentions were not raised before the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Pending I.A.s stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ