IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.3633 OF 2012 (LR) AND WRIT APPEAL NOS.2462-2463 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKFS NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (BY SMT. S. R. ANURADHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101.
2. P MUNIVENKATAPPA SON OF LATE GORAPPA AGE MAJOR …..APPELLANT ADARSH COLLEGE BACKSIDE PETECHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE KOLAR TOWN KOLAR-563 101.
3. SRINIVAS SON OF LATE CHICKAPPAYYA AGE MAJOR ADARSH COLLEGE BACKSIDE PETECHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE KOLAR TOWN KOLAR-563 101 4. R DEVIKA BAI WIFE OF LAKSHMAN RAO OPPOSITE KANNADA PRABHA OFFICE NEAR NAGAR KUNTE KATAR PLAYA KOLAR TOWN KOLAR-563 101.
5. B NAGARAJU SON OF MOGILAPPA AGE MAJOR 6. MARISWAMY SON OF K RAMAYYA AGE MAJOR 7. T V TAMMANNA SON OF T VENKATARAMAPPA AGE MAJOR ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SUGUNA NURSING HOME, BEHIND PALLAVI TALKIES ANTHARANGANGA ROAD KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR -563 101.
….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. A G SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. G. SHIVANNA AND ASSOCIATES, FOR R-2 AND R-3 SRI. G. PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R7(ABSENT)) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No. 16184.2008 AND WRIT PETITION Nos. 1944-45 OF 2009 DATED 24.05.2012 THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.05.2012, dismissing the writ petitions, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. That the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that whether the State Wakf Board or District Wakf Advisory Committee functioning as the competent authority, has received a notice or not, cannot be a ground to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the petition has not been properly appreciated. The material on record would indicate that the writ petitioner was not even a party to the proceeding before the Land Tribunal. Hence she pleads that equal opportunity be granted to the appellant to make out their case before the Tribunal.
3. The same is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. He contends that there is substantial delay of 28 years in challenging the impugned order. That certain persons had challenged the very order of the Land Tribunal in Writ Petition No.38719 of 1999 and the same was dismissed by order dated 18.06.2001. Hence the same cannot be questioned once again.
Therefore, he pleads that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for interference.
4. Heard learned Government Advocate and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 is absent.
5. The material on record would indicate that the writ petitioner was not a party before the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The plea of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is that notice was issued to the District Wakf Advisory Committee. Therefore, since the Wakf Board has been represented, it cannot be said that they were not aware of the order.
6. By considering the said contention, we do not find the name of the Wakf Board in any capacity, either in the District level or in the State level, being represented before the Tribunal. Therefore, even assuming that a notice was issued, they were not heard before the impugned order was passed. Any order to be passed, which affects the right of the parties, the said party would have to be heard. In the absence of hearing the party, necessarily the order cannot be enforced against him. The petitioners came to know of the said order only when the instant writ petition was filed. Therefore, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in approaching the writ court.
7. So far as the contention of the respondents that Writ Petition No.38719 of 1999 was dismissed against the very same order of the Tribunal, we do not find it relevant for the determination of these appeals. The writ petition therein was filed by certain persons claiming to have an interest over the land in question. The writ petitioner herein is the Karnataka Board of Wakfs. They are a different entity altogether. Therefore, it cannot be said that even though the writ petition was dismissed earlier, the same would bind the appellant herein.
8. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the parties are required to be heard before any order is to be passed. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would further plead that the properties have changed hands on a number of occasions. If that be so, then all the parties would have to be necessarily heard by the Tribunal. For all the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following:
Order The writ appeals are allowed.
The order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition Nos.16184 of 2008 and 1944-45 of 2009 dated 24.05.2012, and the order of the Land Tribunal, Kolar, in Case No. LRF.DVS. 132,129,128:80-81 dated 27.11.1981, are set aside.
The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration, in accordance with law.
All contentions are kept open.
The parties are entitled to implead all those persons who are interested in the land in question.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE RD