IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.14554/2015 (KVOA) BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMANJANEYA S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED R/O LAKKUR VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHUSWAMY N, ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE TAHASILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK NELAMANGALA - 562 120 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2 . SRI. VENKATAPPA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O LAKKUR VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BNAGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
3 . SRI. PUTTAIAH S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O GALIGENAHALLI GULUR HOBLI - 572 118 TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
4 . SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O FORM HOSE, NEAR BYLANJANEYA TEMPLE URDIGERE POST - 572 140 TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
5 . SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRs:
5(a) SMT. KEMPARAMAKKA W/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
5(b) SRI. RAJANNA S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
5(c) SRI. RAMAMURTHY S/O RAMAKRISHNAIH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
5(d) SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
R-5(a) TO 5(d) ARE RESIDING AT DANANAYAKANA PALYA URDIGERE HOBLI – 572 140 TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
6 . SRI. CHIKKANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRs:
6(a) SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT DANANAYAKANA PALYA URDIGERE HOBLI – 572 140 TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
7 . SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O NARASIPURA POST SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 111 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
8 . SRI. PUTTAIAH S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
9 . SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
10 . SRI. LINGADEVARU S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOs.8 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT LAKKUR THOTA VILLAGE, LAKKUR POST - 562 11 SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
11 . SRI. HONNAGANGAIAH S/O LATE P. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O NO.47, NEAR TRUPTI COMPLEX, IN FRONT OF BYRE TEMPLE, SIDDANNA GALLI CUBBONPET BANGALORE - 560 002. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1; SMT. R. MANJULA DEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-4 & R-7; R-5 IS DEAD; R-6 IS DEAD;
PROPOSED R-5(a), (b), (c) & (d) ARE SERVED; PROPOSED R-6(a) SERVED;
R-8 AND R-9 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:09.06.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN M.A. 141/2012, VIDE ANNE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL IN M.A. NO.41/2012.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Father of petitioner Sri Dasappa @ Dasa claiming to be the Talwar at Lakkur village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk rendered services as Talwar in the said village and on account of services so rendered, it is stated that he was in occupation of the land and cultivating the property bearing Sy.Nos.96 and 150 measuring 6.23 acres and 66 guntas respectively situated at Lakkur village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangalal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and as such, application for regrant of said land came to be filed on Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 coming into force. Two other applications also came to be filed by Sriyuths Venktappa and Ramakrishna seeking regrant of very same land. Hence, three applications came to be registered by first respondent and by order dated 21.09.1984 (Annexure-D) granted 3.12 acres in Sy.No.96, 13 guntas in Sy.No.150 came to be regranted jointly in the names of Sri Ramakrishnaiah and Sri Venkatappa. Respondents-2 and 4 herein are said to be the family members of Sri Venkatappa and respondents-5 to 7 are said to be the family members of Sri Ramakrishnaiah. Respondents-8 to 11 herein who are stated to be the legal representatives of Sri Gangappa and Sri P Gangappa who have said to have purchased regranted land. However, petitioner who is representing the family of both Sri Dasappa @ Dasa claims to be in possession of said land.
2. On account of alleged interference caused by respondents-8 to 11 to the possession and enjoyment of petitioner in respect of aforesaid lands, petitioners is said to have verified records at Nelamangala Taluk office and on verification, found that lands have been regranted in favour of respondents-2 to 7 and aggrieved by order of regrant, appeal in M.A.No.141/2012 came to be filed before Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Appellate Court, on 27.09.2013 has ordered for listing the matter for arguments on main along with application I.A.I filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Matter has been adjourned from time to time and after having heard the matter on 11.02.2014, it was posted for judgment to 19.02.2014 and thereafter to 20.02.2014. From 20.02.2014, it was ordered to be listed on 28.02.2014. However, on said date, learned appellate Judge has recorded that synopsis of written arguments are to be filed by both the parties and as such, adjourned the matter to 11.03.2014.
Thereafter from time to time matter has been adjourned. On 10.04.2014 learned Advocate appearing for respondents-8 to 10 has filed/submitted written arguments along with authorities in support of their contentions. However, Advocate for the appellant and also appellant have remained absent continuously from 27.03.2014 to 09.06.2014 and on 09.06.2014 matter has been passed over and in spite of same, there being no representation on behalf of appellant, appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Having heard Sri Prabhuswamy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri V B Siddaramaiah, for petitioner and Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for respondent-1 and on perusal of records, it requires to be noticed that learned Advocate appearing for petitioner is correct and justified in contending that appellate court was not required to direct the parties or their learned Advocates to file written arguments particularly when oral arguments had already been heard and posted the matter for judgment. Only course left open for the appellate Judge was to examine the records, adjudicate the rival contentions raised and proceed to pass the judgment. Having ordered for listing the matter for pronouncement of judgment, appellate court has taken the route of directing learned Advocates appearing for both parties to file written arguments. As to whether learned Advocates voluntarily undertook to file written arguments or learned appellate Judge himself has directed the learned Advocates to file written arguments is not forthcoming from the order sheet of the appellate Court – Annexure-E. Order dated 28.02.2014 reads:
“Both the counsels absent.
Call for to submit synopsis of written arguments by 11.3.2014.
Sd/- 28/2/14 Prl.District Judge.”
4. The above recording of the proceedings by learned appellate Judge would indicate that written arguments which have been ordered to be filed seems to be at the instance of the court itself. As such, appellate court was not justified in dismissing the appeal for default for non-filing of the written arguments and appellate court ought to have proceeded to adjudicate the claim on the basis of material papers available before it and in the background of oral arguments having already been addressed by respective learned Advocates. Hence, impugned order is not sustainable in law.
5. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Order dated 09.06.2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District in M.A.No.141/2012 (Annexure-E) is hereby set aside and appeal M.A.No.141/2012 is restored to the file of jurisdictional court for being disposed of on merits and in accordance with law.
(iii) Petitioner who is appellant before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District in M.A.No.141/2012 shall appear on 11.11.2019 without waiting for further notice from said court.
(iv) However, appellate Court shall issue court notice to the contesting respondents namely, respondents-8 to 10 herein and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case.
All pending applications stand consigned to records.
*sp SD/- JUDGE