IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1612 OF 2015 (LR) BETWEEN:
1. RAJAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES A) SRI SHANTHAMALLAPPA SON OF LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDANUR VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.
B) SRI NAGARAJ SON OF LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDANUR VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 102.
C) SRI LOKANATH SON OF LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDANUR VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.
2. B.R. MALLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES A) SMT. THEJAVATHI DAUGHTER OF LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDANUR VILLAGE ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 102.
B) SRI B.M. YOGESHA SON OF LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDANUR VILLAGE ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.
C) SMT. DAKSHAYANI DAUGHTER OF LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDANUR VILLAGE ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.
D) SRI B.M. GIRISHA @ UMESHA SON OF LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDANUR VILLAGE ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.
E) SMT. B.M. SUDHA DAUGHTER OF LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDANUR VILLAGE, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.
F) SRI B.M. MANJUNATH SON OF LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDANUR VILLAGE, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.
G) SMT. SHOBA DAUGHTER OF LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUDANUR VILLAGE, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102 (BY SRI K. N. NITISH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL ARKALGUD TALUK, ARKALGUD, BY ITS SECRETARY-TAHASILDAR, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 130.
2. PUTTASWAMAPPA SON OF LATE RUDRAPPA, ... APPELLANTS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES A) SMT. SHANTAMMA, WIFE OF LATE PUTTASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANDIKOPPALU HOUSE, KELAGALALE VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 102.
B) SMT. GOWRAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE PUTTASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANDIKOPPALU HOUSE, KELAGALALE VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
C) KUM MANJULA DAUGHTER OF LATE PUTTASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANDIKOPPALU HOUSE, KELAGALALE VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
D) SRI SURESH SON OF LATE PUTTASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANDIKOPPALU HOUSE, KELAGALALE VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 102.
E) RUDRAPPA SON OF LATE PUTTASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANDIKOPPALU HOUSE, KELAGALALE VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
F) CHANDRASHEKARA SON OF LATE PUTTASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANDIKOPPALU HOUSE, KELAGALALE VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
G) PUTTASWAMAPPA SON OF LATE PUTTASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANDIKOPPALU HOUSE, KELAGALALE VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
... RESPONDENTS (BY MS. N. ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT. H. R. ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2(A TO G)) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 10(IV)(A) OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 27 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1977 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE REVIEW PETITION NO.545 OF 2009 DATED 16.08.2010.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in declining to condone the delay in filing the review petition and consequently dismissing the review petition with observations, the LRs of respondents 2 and 3 have filed this appeal.
2. The only contention urged by the appellants’ counsel is that the learned Single Judge could not have granted liberty to the review petitioners to establish fraud before the Tribunal. That the learned Single Judge could have either allowed or rejected the petition. The directions were uncalled for. The same is disputed by the respondents.
3. However, on hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. What the learned Single Judge has stated is that it is open for the review petitioners to establish fraud alleged to have been committed before the Land Tribunal. Liberty is always with them which is granted by law. Liberty cannot be granted by the Court if it does not exist in law. However, if liberty is not granted and if a right exists to the petitioners, they are entitled to exercise such rights in a manner known to law. Therefore, we do not find, that merely by granting such liberty any illegality is committed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we do not find any good ground to interfere. Writ appeal is dismissed.
Pending I.A.s shall stand dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Rsk/-