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.4224 OF 2012 (LR) BETWEEN:
1. SRI MASTI SON OF BYRA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT TALAGODU VILLAGE, BALEHOLE POST, VIA KALASA, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132.
2. BELLAYA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SHANKARU @ SHANKAR SON OF LATE BELLAYA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT A.K. COLONY, THANNUDI VILLAGE, BALEHOLE POST, VIA KALASA, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI T.S. JAGADISH HEGADE SON OF LATE SUBBANNA HEGADE, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, COFFEE PLANTER, RESIDING AT PANCHAVATI ESTATE, THANNUDI VILLAGE, BALEHOLE POST, VIA KALASA, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MUDIGERE TALUK, MUDIGERE-577 132, BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE SUB DIVISION, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.
4. THE TAHASILDAR MUDIGERE TALUK, MUDIGERE-577 132.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, ADV. FOR R1 – ABSENT, SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.18229 OF 2006 (LR) DATED 11.06.2012 AND FURTHER TO DISMISS THE AFORESAID WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL WITH COSTS.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 11-6-2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18229 of 2006 allowing the Writ Petition and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration, respondents 5 & 6 therein have filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is bad in law and liable to be interfered with. That the learned Single Judge committed an error in setting aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent of forfeiting 4.23 acres of land is concerned. Hence, they plead that the appeal be allowed. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent is absent.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. On considering the material on record, the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. However, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration, keeping all contentions open. In view of the same, we do not find it expedient to interfere in the mater when the same has been remanded for a re-consideration. Prima facie also, we are of the view that the lands being coffee plantations the same would not come within the purview Land Reforms Act. However, it is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the claim or not. Under these circumstances, we find no good ground to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-