IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.5418 OF 2017 (KLR) CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NO.5419 OF 2017 (KLR) WRIT APPEAL NO.5420 OF 2017 (KLR) WRIT APPEAL NO.5421 OF 2017 (KLR) AND WRIT APPEAL NO.5422 OF 2017 (KLR) IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 5418 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
Sri Ramesh @ Raju Aged about 45 years S/o late Ugraraju Grandson of Nagaraju C/o M. A. Rajashekar 79/1, 12th Cross, Near MS Ramaiaha College Matthikere Extension Bangalore – 54.
... Appellant (By Sri. Umesh B N , Advocate) AND:
1. The State Of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue M S Building , Bangalore 560001.
2. The Tahsildar Yelahanka Division Yelahanka Bangalore North Additional Taluk, Bangalore 560064.
3. Vijayakumari W/o Late Shivaraman Aged 61 Years, 4. S Vasanth Kumar S/o Late Shivaraman Aged 36 Years, 5. S Padmanabha S/o Late Shivaraman, Aged 33 Years, Respondents 3 to 5 are residing at No.1082, 3rd Cross, Hanuman Temple, Sreerama Puram, Bangalore 560 001.
6. Smt Ambika W/o Vasanthkumar Aged 30 Years, 7. Smt Archana W/o Padmanabhan Aged About 28 Years, Respondents 6 & 7 are Residing At No.3, 3rd Cross, Behind Veeranjaneya Temple, Srirampura, Bangalore 560 021. … Respondents (By Sri S S Mahendra, AGA for R-1 & R-2; Sri G Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel for Sri Chandrakanth Patil K., Advocate for R-3 to R-7) This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2014 in W.P.No.7192/2014 (KLR) and the consequential revenue entries effected in favour of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 5419 OF 2017: BETWEEN:
R. Srinivasa Raju Aged about 42 years, S/o Late Ramaraju, Grand Son of Late, Srinivasa Raje Urs, No.54, Nethaji Road, Dwarakanagar, Yelahanka Bangalore – 560064. ... Appellant (By Sri. Umesh B N , Advocate) AND:
1. The State Of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue M S Building , Bangalore 560001.
2. The Tahsildar Yelahanka Division Yelahanka Bangalore North Additional Taluk, Bangalore 560064.
3. Vijayakumari W/o Late Shivaraman Aged 61 Years, 4. S Vasanth Kumar S/o Late Shivaraman Aged 36 Years, 5. S Padmanabha S/o Late Shivaraman, Aged 33 Years, Respondents 3 to 5 are residing at No.1082, 3rd Cross, Hanuman Temple, Sreerama Puram, Bangalore 560 001.
6. Smt Ambika W/o Vasanthkumar Aged 30 Years, 7. Smt Archana W/o Padmanabhan Aged About 28 Years, Respondents 6 & 7 are Residing At No.3, 3rd Cross, Behind Veeranjaneya Temple, Srirampura, Bangalore 560 021.
… Respondents (By Sri S S Mahendra, AGA for R-1 & R-2; Sri G Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel for Sri Chandrakanth Patil K., Advocate for R-3 to R-7) This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2014 in W.P.No.7192/2014 (KLR) and the consequential revenue entries effected in favour of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 5420 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
Mr. Ananda Aged about 43 years Great-Grandson of Late Rathnamma S/o Suryanarayana Kanigara Halli Bangalore North Taluk Bangalore – 560090. ... Appellant (By Sri. Umesh B N , Advocate) AND:
1. The State Of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue M S Building , Bangalore 560001.
2. The Tahsildar Yelahanka Division Yelahanka Bangalore North Additional Taluk, Bangalore 560064.
3. Vijayakumari W/o Late Shivaraman Aged 61 Years, 4. S Vasanth Kumar S/o Late Shivaraman Aged 36 Years, 5. S Padmanabha S/o Late Shivaraman, Aged 33 Years, Respondents 3 to 5 are residing at No.1082, 3rd Cross, Hanuman Temple, Sreerama Puram, Bangalore 560 001.
6. Smt Ambika W/o Vasanthkumar Aged 30 Years, 7. Smt Archana W/o Padmanabhan Aged About 28 Years, Respondents 6 & 7 are Residing At No.3, 3rd Cross, Behind Veeranjaneya Temple, Srirampura, Bangalore 560 021.
(By Sri S S Mahendra, AGA for R-1 & R-2;
… Respondents Sri G Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel for Sri Chandrakanth Patil K., Advocate for R-3 to R-7) This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2014 in W.P.No.7192/2014 (KLR) and the consequential revenue entries effected in favour of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 5421 OF 2017: BETWEEN:
H N Rathnaraju Aged about 48 years S/o Narasimharaju Grandson of Late Ramappa Hesaraghatta Village Bangalore North Taluk Pin-560090. ... Appellant (By Sri. Umesh B N , Advocate) AND:
1. The State Of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue M S Building , Bangalore 560001.
2. The Tahsildar Yelahanka Division Yelahanka Bangalore North Additional Taluk, Bangalore 560064.
3. Vijayakumari W/o Late Shivaraman Aged 61 Years, 4. S Vasanth Kumar S/o Late Shivaraman Aged 36 Years, 5. S Padmanabha S/o Late Shivaraman, Aged 33 Years, Respondents 3 to 5 are residing at No.1082, 3rd Cross, Hanuman Temple, Sreerama Puram, Bangalore 560 001.
6. Smt Ambika W/o Vasanthkumar Aged 30 Years, 7. Smt Archana W/o Padmanabhan Aged About 28 Years, Respondents 6 & 7 are Residing At No.3, 3rd Cross, Behind Veeranjaneya Temple, Srirampura, Bangalore 560 021. … Respondents (By Sri S S Mahendra, AGA for R-1 & R-2; Sri G Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel for Sri Chandrakanth Patil K., Advocate for R-3 to R-7) This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2014 in W.P.No.7192/2014 (KLR) and the consequential revenue entries effected in favour of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 5422 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
Smt Indira V D/o Late Venkataraju Grand Daughter of Late Narasimhaiah Aged about 44 years Hesaraghatta Village Bangalore North Taluk PIN-560090. ... Appellant (By Sri. Umesh B N , Advocate) AND:
1. The State Of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue M S Building , Bangalore 560001.
2. The Tahsildar Yelahanka Division Yelahanka Bangalore North Additional Taluk, Bangalore 560064.
3. Vijayakumari W/o Late Shivaraman Aged 61 Years, 4. S Vasanth Kumar S/o Late Shivaraman Aged 36 Years, 5. S Padmanabha S/o Late Shivaraman, Aged 33 Years, Respondents 3 to 5 are residing at No.1082, 3rd Cross, Hanuman Temple, Sreerama Puram, Bangalore 560 001.
6. Smt Ambika W/o Vasanthkumar Aged 30 Years, 7. Smt Archana W/o Padmanabhan Aged About 28 Years, Respondents 6 & 7 are Residing At No.3, 3rd Cross, Behind Veeranjaneya Temple, Srirampura, Bangalore 560 021. … Respondents (By Sri S S Mahendra, AGA for R-1 & R-2; Sri G Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel for Sri Chandrakanth Patil K., Advocate for R-3 to R-7) This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2014 in W.P.No.7192/2014 (KLR) and the consequential revenue entries effected in favour of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
These Writ Appeals, coming on for admission, this day, RAVI MALIMATH., J, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition No.7192 of 2014 and directing the second respondent – Tahsildar to give effect to the order dated 10.12.1954 passed by the Revenue Commissioner and the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 4.1.2010 and to bring necessary changes in the revenue records, the applicants in I.A.2 of 2017 have filed the present appeals.
2. Different grantees have filed the aforesaid five appeals. They have filed applications I.A.No.2 of 2017 in their respective appeals seeking leave to prefer the appeal, since they were not parties before the learned Single Judge. Their plea is that the lands in question of various extents as mentioned in their application, were granted to their ancestors. They have also produced the Grant Certificate, Saguvali Chit, etc., in support of their title to the lands in question. Therefore, they plead that their lands being the subject matter in the writ petition, no orders could have been passed by the learned Single Judge without hearing them.
3. The same is disputed by the contesting respondents. They have filed their objections to the applications seeking grant of leave. They have also produced various documents in support of their claim. They contend that the alleged grant in favour of the applicants does not exist. That they made requisite applications seeking for certified copies of the documents in favour of the applicants. None of them were provided by the Tahsildar and other authorities on the ground that they were not available or that no such documents existed. Therefore, it is pleaded that there is no right, title or interest for the applicants to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we have examined the materials produced by the applicants as well as that of the contesting respondents. On considering the same, we are of the prima facie view that based on the documents produced by the applicants, it would appear that they possess some kind of a right or title over the lands in question. Even though the same is sought to be disputed by the contesting respondents, we are of the view that the same is required to be adjudicated. Though applicants were not parties to the writ petition, based on the documents produced by them, we deem it just and necessary that leave be granted to them to challenge the said order. We however make it clear that the documents produced by the applicants or the respondents are not being accepted by us on authenticity. The documents produced by the applicants as well as the documents sought to be produced by the respondents would have to be established before the learned Single Judge, in a manner known to law.
5. Therefore, since we are of the prima facie view that the legal rights of the applicants stand affected, they are necessary parties and are entitled to maintain these appeals. Consequently, the applications I.A.No.2 of 2017 filed in each of these appeals seeking leave to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, are allowed. The applicants are permitted to prosecute these appeals.
6. Applications I.A.No.1 of 2017 are filed by the appellant in each of these appeals seeking condonation of delay of 1209 days in filing the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
It is pleaded that they were not parties to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It was only on 21.01.2007 when they secured the RTC extract that they came to know of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Immediately, they applied for the copies of the relevant documents and have filed these appeals. Therefore, there is a delay in filing the appeals.
7. The same is objected to by the contesting respondents. They plead that the delay is too inordinate and therefore, cannot be condoned. Moreover, the appellants are neither necessary nor proper parties for the disposal of these appeals.
8. However, on hearing the learned counsels, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been shown. Admittedly, the appellants were not parties before the learned Single Judge. They were not aware of the pending proceedings. It is only in the year 2017 that they came to know of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The order has been passed without they being a party to the proceedings. Therefore, they had no knowledge of the proceedings. After coming to know of the same, the instant writ appeals have been filed. Therefore, we are of the view that the same constitutes sufficient cause. Hence, I.A.No.1 of 2017 filed in each of these appeals is allowed and the delay in filing the appeals is condoned.
9. Admit.
10. Heard learned counsels on merits.
11. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition and directed to give effect to the order dated 10.12.1954 passed by the Revenue Commissioner and the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 4.1.2010 and to bring necessary changes in the revenue records. In view of the fact that the said order has been passed without notice or knowledge of the appellants herein, it is just and necessary that the matter be re-considered by the learned Single Judge on merits. The plea of the appellants that they have a right, title and interest over the respective land in question should necessarily be determined prior to determining the writ petition on merits. Hence, without going into the merits of the impugned order, we deem it just and necessary that the appellants be made parties to the writ petition and thereafter the writ petition be considered on merits.
12. Therefore, we direct that the appellants herein be impleaded as Respondents 3 to 7. Writ petitioners to carry out corrections in the writ petition.
13. Hence, the writ appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7192 of 2014 dated 08.04.2014 is set aside. The writ petition is restored to file. The learned Single Judge to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders based on the aforesaid observations. All contentions kept open.
14. The RTCs which are said to stand in the name of the respondents shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition.
15. The applications I.A.No.3 of 2017 filed in each of the appeals for production of additional documents are permitted to be re-filed before the learned Single Judge.
Other pending I.As stand dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE KS