IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.95/2019 (LR) BETWEEN:
SRI HANUMAPPA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS a) NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED b) VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS c) NAGRAJ REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS d) RAJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MINDAHALLI VILLAGE TAYALUR HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 562 313 ... APPELLANTS (BY SHRI M.V. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE & SHRI C. CHANDRAMOULESHWARACHARI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 562 313 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY / TAHSILDAR 3. CATHOLU CHINNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS a) M. VENKATARAME GOWDA MAJOR S/O CHINNAPPA @ CATHOLU MUNIAPPA b) MUNEGOWDA MAJOR S/O CHINNAPPA @ CATHOLU MUNIAPPA R3(a&b) ARE R/AT MINDAHALLI VILLAGE TAYALUR HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 562 313 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VENKATACHALAPATHI S.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3(a); R-3(b) IS SERVED;
SHRI P.B. ACHAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.41537/2018 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3(a) and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the other respondents. The respondent No.3(b) has not appeared though served.
2. By the impugned order dated 17th December 2018, the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer for interim relief in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge completely ignored the fact that before passing the impugned order, the Land Tribunal had not heard the appellants. It is obvious from the copy of the proceedings on record. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge without considering this fact has erroneously rejected the prayer for interim relief.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3(a) submitted that there is no material on record to show that the appellants are in possession of the land and in fact the possession is with the respondents No.3(a) and 3(b). He, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for. He further submitted that ad-interim stay granted in this appeal may be vacated as on the basis of the said order, the appellants are trying to disturb their possession.
4. We have considered the submissions. Perusal of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, in which the impugned order dated 1st March 2018 was passed, shows that the proceedings before the Tribunal was repeatedly adjourned. On 19th February 2018, it is recorded in the proceedings that the respondent Nos.3(a) and 3(b) were present. The appellants were absent. On the next date i.e., 1st March 2018, the impugned order was pronounced, which records the submissions of the predecessor of the appellants. In fact, on the immediately earlier date i.e., 19th February 2018, the appellants in this appeal had not at all appeared before the Tribunal. Notwithstanding the fact that they did not appear, in the impugned order their submissions have been recorded, thus, prima facie the order has been vitiated.
5. Perusal of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge shows that the attention of the learned Single Judge was not invited to the prayer for interim relief in the writ petition. The prayer for interim relief was for stay of the order of the Tribunal. However, submissions were canvassed before the learned Single Judge on granting interim relief as regards possession. The prayer made for stay has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. For the reasons which we have recorded, prima facie, it appears to us that the order dated 1st March 2018 suffers from illegality inasmuch as though the appellants were not present at the time of the arguments and though the appellants had not argued before the Tribunal, in the impugned order, the submissions of the appellants have been recorded.
6. Therefore, a case is made out for grant of stay to the impugned order dated 1st March 2018. As the parties were not heard in detail on the prayer for stay, we propose to remit the matter to the learned Single Judge to decide the prayer of stay as prayed for. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) There will be an ad-interim relief of stay of operation and execution of the order dated 1st March 2018 passed by the Land Tribunal;
(ii) This order shall operate for a period of three months from today with liberty to the parties to move the learned Single Judge for considering the prayer for interim relief made in the writ petition. The prayer will be decided without being influenced by the grant of ad-interim stay by this Court;
(iii) The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
All the contentions on merits on the pending petition are kept open.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN