IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.3183 OF 2016 (LR) BETWEEN:
SRI. SUNDARA BHANDARY AGED 76 YEARS, SON OF LATE VASU BHANDARY, RESIDING AT NEAR KADRI TEMPLE, KADRI VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, MANGALURU, D.K.-575 002.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. KAMALA SINCE DEAD BY LRs 1(a) SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA, MAJOR, SON OF SMT. KAMALA 1(b) SMT. PUSHPALATHA MAJOR, DAUGHTER OF SMT. KAMALA 1(c) SMT. JAYASHREE MAJOR, DAUGHTER OF SMT. KAMALA ALL ARE RESIDING AT AKKU COMPOUND, NEAR KADRI TEMPLE, KADRI VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.-575 002.
2. SMT. PREMA AGED 51 YEARS, WIFE OF SUDHAKAR, RESIDING AT AKKU COMPOUND, NEAR KADRI TEMPLE, KADRI VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K-575 002.
3. SMT. LALITHA MAJOR, WIFE OF ANGARA MOILY, RESIDING AT AKKU COMPOUND, NEAR KADRI TEMPLE KADRI VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.-575 002.
4. THE MANGALURU TALUK LAND TRIBUNAL MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.
MANGALURU-575 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
6. KADRI SHREE MANJUNATHA DEVARU, KADRI, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAXMINARAYAN, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos.4 AND 5 RESPONDENT Nos.1(a-c), 2, 3 AND 6 ARE SERVED) THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No. 1141/2005 DATED 01/09/2005.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.1141 of 2005 in accepting the settlement arrived at between the parties therein, the third party has filed this appeal.
2. The plea of the appellant is that he is one of the tenants. Along with others he had filed Form No.2A for grant of land as an agricultural labourer. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.02.2003 had granted land to the writ petitioners to an extent of 25 cents in terms of their application filed in Form No.7 and 5 cents to the 1st respondent in terms of her application filed in Form No.2A. The appellant also filed Form No.2A claiming ownership of the dwelling house and appurtenant land measuring 5 cents. The Land Tribunal vide order dated 12.11.1987 rejected the claim of the appellant, which was challenged in W.P.No.2208 of 2001. This Court by the order dated 27.10.2005 disposed off the petition and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration. It is presently submitted that the matter is still pending before the Land Tribunal. In the interregnum, the other tenants filed Form No.7 and Form No.2A, which was disposed off by the Land Tribunal by order dated 19.02.2003. The same was challenged in the instant writ petition, which was disposed off by the order dated 01.09.2005. Therefore, it is pleaded that until and unless the case of all the tenants are heard together, injustice will be caused to the parties and hence, all the cases require to be heard together.
3. We are not inclined to accept such a contention. The fact that in the earlier round of litigation, the plea of the proposed applicant being rejected so also the writ petition was not entertained. However, the matter was remanded for a fresh consideration. The other tenants have filed the instant writ petition, which was disposed off on mutual consent. Even if the contention of the appellant is to be accepted, then such a compromise being effected by the other parties, would not affect the right of the appellant. The parties to the compromise would alone be bound by the compromise and no other persons. Admittedly, the appellant was not a party to the said settlement. Therefore, his right would have to be agitated in an appropriate manner. Until and unless the impugned order is recalled and both the matters are considered by the Tribunal together, no relief can be granted to the appellant herein. Hence, we find no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2016 are rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms