IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.22 OF 2014 (LR) BETWEEN:
SRI ANDHANAPPA SON OF MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NIDIGE VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, BY ITS SECRETARY TAHASILDAR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 201.
3. SMT. NARASAMMA WIFE OF NINGANNA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
3(A1) SMT. NAGARATHNA WIDOW OF LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
3(A2) SRI BYRAPPA SON OF LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
3(A3) SRI ANANDA SON OF LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
3(A4) SMT. RANJIT DAUGHTER OF LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, WIFE OF KATTING KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NIDIGI VILLAGE, NIDIGI POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
3(B) MANJAPPA SON OF NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NIDIGI POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
4. SMT. THAYAMMA WIFE OF RANGAPPA R/O NIDIGE POST SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI K.N. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 (ABSENT); NOTICE TO R-3A (1-3) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 17.01.2019;
R-3(B) IS SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.42039 OF 2011 DATED 13.08.2013.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.42039 of 2011, in dismissing the writ petition, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that none of the contentions urged were considered by the learned Single Judge. That the learned Single Judge merely held that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Land Tribunal, in rejecting the claim of the appellant.
3. The learned counsel further contends that the material on record would indicate that to certain extent of the land in question, the appellant is the owner and in respect of the remaining extent of land, he was a tenant. That these facts have been orally urged before the learned Single Judge.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 disputes the same. There is no representation for the other respondents.
5. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. The plea of the appellant has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. It is only the last portion of the order that contains reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Therein it is held that, on perusal of the impugned order there is no illegality in the order passed by the Land Tribunal, rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
6. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the plea of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that substantial material is placed to substantiate his contention. Therefore, we are of the view that in the absence of considering the plea of the appellant, the impugned order would be unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 13.08.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.42039 of 2011, in dismissing the writ petition is set-aside and the writ petition is restored to file. The writ petition shall be considered on merits in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/- CT:SM