- 1 - ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.55529-55548/2017(LR-RES) BETWEEN 1. HULIGEMMA W/O PAMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HOSALLI, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 227.
2. NOORSAB S/O. IMAMSAB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT HOSALLI, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 227.
3. GURUPADAYYA S/O. MRUTYUNDAYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT HOSALLI, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 227.
4. NAGAPPA S/O EARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT HOSALLI, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 227.
5. AZORATSAB S/O. DADESAB, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT DEVINAGARA, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 227.
6. KASTURI S/O YANKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT DEVINAGARA, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 227.
7. HANUMANTAPPA S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT DEVINAGARA, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 227.
8. LAXMAMMA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT DEVINAGAR, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 227.
9. LINGAJJA S/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT DEVINAGAR, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 227.
10. SYED AMANULLA S/O. SYED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HIREJANTKAL, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 227.
11. MADANAMMA W/O. HIREHULAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HIREJANTKAL, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL- 583 227.
12. DYAVAMMA W/O MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT AYODHYA VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL- 583 227.
13. DURUGAPPA S/O KEMPA DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HIREJANTKAL VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL- 583 227.
14. HULGAPPA S/O. ANJIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT HIREJANTKAL VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL- 583 227.
15. PHAKEERAPPA S/O DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT HIREJANTKAL VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL- 583 227.
16. DURGAPPA S/O. MUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT HIREJANTKAL VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL- 583 227.
17. LINGAPPA S/O.HANUMANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HIREJANTKAL VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL- 583 227.
18. HANUMAMMA @ ANNAMMA D/O. HULGAPPA (DEADASAI) AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT HIREJANTKAL VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL- 583 227.
19. DEVARMANI HULGAPPA S/O HULIGEMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT HIREJANTKAL VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL- 583 227.
20. MANNURAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HOSALLI VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL- 583 227. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHIVARAJ N ARALI, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS NO.1, 3 TO 14, 16 TO 19 PETITIONER NOS.2, 15 AND 20 ARE DEAD) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL – 583 231.
2. M/S. SRINIVASA SUGARS INDUSTRIES KAMPLI ROAD, POST: GANGAVATHI-583 227, REP. SHIR CHUDI NARAYANA SHETTY, DIRECTOR.
3. SHRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, BHAGAT NAGAR, GANGAVATHI-583 227.
4. L. K. TRUST H. NO.9, SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009, REP. K.L. SWAMY, TRUSTEE.
5. THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP FOR R1 & R5 SRI V HARIDAS BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 R3 DEAD) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:15.9.2017 PASSED BY 5TH RESPONDENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.105/2008 WHICH ORDER IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The appellants in Appeal No.105/2008 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, have come up in these writ petitions. In these petitions, the prayers sought for by the petitioners are, to call for the records in the aforesaid Appeal No.105/2008, thereafter to quash the order dated 15.9.2017 in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, consequently, to allow IA.No.2 dated 5.2.2008 filed under Section 122 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 r/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to restore the Appeal in No.105/2008 on the file of KAT to pass appropriate orders thereafter on merits.
2. During the pendency of these writ petitions an application in IA.I/2019 is filed by a person by name P.Shanmukha claiming himself to be Special Power of Attorney Holder of some of the petitioners and the legal heirs of some of the deceased petitioners. In the said application, the prayer sought is for engaging the services of another counsel to conduct these writ petitions. Along with the said application copy of the Special Power of Attorney dated 26.3.2019 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Gangavathi, vide document bearing No.GVT-4-00164-2018- 19, in Book No.4, stored in CD No.GVTD294 on 27.3.2019 as well as copies of Aadhar of the persons, who have executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of said P.Shanmukha, are also produced. It is in this background, presence of the learned counsel who has filed these writ petitions is summoned.
3. Accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is present before the Court. He would submit that there were instructions by the petitioners to file the writ petitions and to argue the matter, that he has no instructions from any of the petitioners regarding return of vakalath either to petitioners or to special power of attorney. He would further state that his arguments in these writ petitions are the grounds urged in the writ petitions and based on that, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
4. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would file a memo stating that a settlement is arrived at between the parties, that in the light of settlement the petitioners have assured to withdraw the writ petitions by executing an affidavit and hence these writ petitions should be disposed of as withdrawn.
5. In these proceedings, in addition to the petitioners and respondent No.4, the learned HCGP is appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5 and he would bring to the notice of this Court that the property involved in these proceedings is valuable landed property belonging to the Government, in respect of which earlier permission was granted to respondent No.2 – M/s. Srinivasa Sugars Industries to dump sugarcane in the said land, subsequently said permission is withdrawn by the Government, therefore the land is vested with the Government on which neither the petitioners nor any third party has any interest, therefore, any settlement arrived by respondent No.4 with the petitioners cannot be accepted by this Court and that the appeal before the KAT is required to be decided on its merits.
6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioners to the land in question should be decided only by the appellate authority (KAT) and in the event of there being any error in the appellate authority deciding the said right of the petitioners, question of this Court stepping in would arise. Therefore, the submission of the learned HCGP appears to be just and proper.
7. The learned HCGP would also state that the rights of the petitioners not being finalized, respondent No.4 could not have taken the risk of acquiring non-existing title to said property from the petitioners. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 tried to assert that the petitioners have already secured title to the property, therefore the same is acquired by respondent No.4 and since there is settlement between them, the same should be accepted.
8. In this background, what is required to be seen is, the nature of the land in question, whether the said land belongs to the Government or it belongs to respondent No.2 – Sugar Industry, which is said to have acquired title to it in the year 1969 or in the alternatively with the petitioners, who are also claiming title to the said property. All these factors will have to be looked into in the proceedings/appeal before the KAT after summoning original records from the Government, since this Court cannot conduct such exercise in its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, it would be appropriate in the fact situation to allow these writ petitions as prayed for.
9. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed.
The order dated 15.9.2017 in Appeal No.105/2008 on the file of KAT, Bengaluru, in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the KAT with a direction to allow IA.2 filed in said proceedings under Section 122 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 r/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereafter to restore the appeal to its file, hear the same on its merits and dispose of the same after giving sufficient opportunity to the Government as well as to other persons, who are staking claim to the land in question.
10. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.
11. In view of the disposal of writ petitions, all other pending applications as well as the memo filed by respondent No.4 do not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-