IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.50217 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN :
SMT. SHASHIPRABHA W/O C.H. NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIDGAL MADAPPADY VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK D.K. DISTRICT. PIN-574 239 …PETITIONER (BY SHRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU TALUK D.K, PIN-575 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR SUB DIVISION, PUTTUR D.K.DISTRICT, PIN-574 201 3. THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THASILDAR, PIN-574 239 4. VIJAY KUMAR BHANDARI S/O LATE ESHWARA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT HEBBARABAILU PUTTUR, KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT, PIN-574 201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 to R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28.3.2018 IN (REVENUE) APPEAL NO.460/2013 (MANGALURU CAMP) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for the State.
2. Petitioner claiming to be in unauthorised occupation of 2.40 acres of land in Survey No.48/3 of Madappady Village, Sullia Taluk, submitted an application for regularization of his occupancy. Accordingly, saguvali chit was issued on 30th June 2007. One Vijaya Kumar Bhandari (respondent No.4) complained to the Assistant Commissioner that petitioner had obtained grant of land illegally. The Assistant Commissioner cancelled the grant. Petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 11th November 2011 before the Deputy Commissioner, Mangaluru. By order dated 28th September 2012, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved, fourth respondent challenged Deputy Commissioner’s order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (‘the KAT’ for short). By order dated 28th March 2018, in appeal No.460/2013, the KAT allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Shri Ravishankar urged following contentions:
that fourth respondent is in no way connected with the land and he could not have maintained an appeal before the KAT.
that the application filed by fourth respondent under Regulation 49(a) of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1979 has been allowed without notice to the petitioner; and that on merits, the Tribunal has erred in recording findings in paragraphs No.14 and 15 that documents were not correctly examined and objections raised by fourth respondent was not considered by the Deputy Commissioner.
With these submissions, Shri Ravishankar prayed for allowing this petition.
4. Learned AGA argued opposing the petition.
5. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that fourth respondent has complained to the Assistant Commissioner about the grant and consequently, the Assistant Commissioner cancelled the grant. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and it was challenged before the KAT by fourth respondent. With regard to Regulation 49(a) of the KAT Regulations, the said Regulation require a person having interest to seek leave of the Tribunal. Admittedly, leave has been granted by the Tribunal. Petitioner’s contention is that said application was allowed ex parte. However, it is relevant to note that after granting leave, appeal was heard on merits. Petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to allowing the application under Section 49(a) ex parte, or maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal. To a pointed question by this Court, learned advocate for the petitioner, in his usual fairness, submitted that the said ground was not even argued before the Tribunal. Further, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal is not disputed.
7. So far as next ground with regard to findings in paragraphs No.14 and 15 are concerned, it is relevant to note that petitioner has not averred that said findings are erroneous on facts. It is settled that in a certiorari proceedings, High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, shall not ordinarily interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal having jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on merits, unless the aggrieved party specifically challenges such findings and demonstrate that the findings are contrary to records.
8. In the absence of specific contention that findings recorded are contrary to the facts borne out on record, it is unnecessary to examine the said contention. Further, the impugned order is an order of remand directing the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Yn.
Sd/- JUDGE