IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NOS.1082-1084 OF 2019 (LR) BETWEEN:
SRI. R. ANJANEYACHAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S., 1. SRI. A.VASUDEV, S/O. LATE R. ANJANEYACHAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI. A. SRIDHARA MURTHY, S/O. LATE R. ANJANEYACHAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3. SRI. A.RAMESH, S/O. LATE R. ANJANEYACHAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT, NO.2429, LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, ROJIPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. (BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANTS AND:
1. SRI LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. MALLESHAPPA, S/O. VEERAIAH, ROJIPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PODAM BLOCK, V.V. TOWER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
SRI. NARAYANAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S 4. SMT. VENKATAMMA, W/O. LATE VENKATAPPA, ROJIPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I. THRANATH POOJARI, AGA FOR R2 & R3;
R4 IS SERVED) ---
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26TH FEBRUARY 2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.6258- 6260/2019(LR).
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned AGA for the second and third respondents. None appears for the fourth respondent.
2. The challenge is to the impugned order dated 26th February 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed by the present petitioners.
3. In the writ petitions, the challenge was to the order dated 30th November 2015 passed by the second respondent – the Deputy Commissioner as well as the judgment and order dated 24th January 2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the appeal preferred against the order dated 30th November 2015.
4. The appellant’s father filed a writ petition seeking occupancy rights in respect of the subject land. Initially, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant’s father. In a writ petition was filed by the appellant’s father in which, the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the application was remanded back to the Tribunal. Thereafter, a fresh enquiry was made by the second respondent. The claim of the father of the appellant was rejected. The appeal preferred by the father of the appellant against the said order came to be dismissed. In the writ petition filed by the appellant’s father, the case was again remanded to the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner.
5. It appears that on 21st September 2015, a compromise petition was filed by the appellants and the first respondent. On compromise petition, the order was reserved by the second respondent. By an order dated 30th November 2015, the second respondent rejected the claim application by directing the Tahasildar, Doddaballapura Taluk to take necessary action and make necessary entries in the revenue records in the name of the Government. An appeal was preferred by the appellants against the order of the second respondent which is confirmed by the order of the learned Single Judge.
6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the second respondent did not hear the parties on merits on 21st September 2015. On that day, the compromise petition filed by the parties was taken on record and the order on the compromise petition was reserved. He relied upon the copies of the proceedings filed on the record. His submission is that without hearing the parties on merits, not only that the Deputy Commissioner passed orders refusing to record the compromise, but the matter ought to have heard on merits. The Appellate Authority has gone into the merits of the controversy. The learned Single Judge has confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority.
7. It appears from the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner that after taking compromise petition on record, he reserved the orders on the compromise petition. The proceedings do not record that the parties were heard on merits. If the Deputy Commissioner was of the view that the compromise petition cannot be accepted as the same was not lawful, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have kept the proceedings for hearing on merits of the controversy after rejecting the compromise petition. However, by passing the order, he has not only rejected the compromise, but concluded the enquiry on merits.
8. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the parties were not heard on merits by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the matter will have to be remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for holding an enquiry on merits. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The orders impugned before the learned Single Judge dated 30th November 2015 and 24th January 2018 are hereby set aside and the proceedings are restored to the file of the second respondent. Consequently, the order dated 26th February 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge also stand set aside;
(iii) The second respondent after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE snc Sd/- JUDGE