IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.15213-15217/2017 (LR-RES) BETWEEN 1. SMT.SYNORA THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, W/O LATE THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE 83 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSE HOLD 2ND FLOOR, DHUN MAHAL, GARDEN ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 039.
2. MRS. DANIELLE THEOPHILIS GONASALVES S/O LATE THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TRAVEL/SERVICE PROFESSIONAL 2ND FLOOR, DHUN MAHAL, GARDEN ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 039.
3. MRS. GISELLE D’COSTA D/O LATE THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEACHER 455, APACHE COURT, UNIT 140 MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO L4Z3W8, CANADA.
4. MR.NYALL THEOPHILIS GONSALVES S/O LATE THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FREIGHT & LOGISTICS PROFESSIONAL 3091, DOYLE STREET, MISSISSAUGA ONTARIO L5M0N2, CANADA.
5. MR. NIGEL THEOPHILIS GONSALVES S/O LATE THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FINANCE PROFESSIONAL 3091, DOYLE STREET, MISSISSAUGA ONTARIO L5M0N2, CANADA.
ALL ARE REP BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. NADIR KARANJIA, R/AT 8 MODY MANSION, 3RD FLOOR, 49 MEREWEATHER ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 001. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ, ADV.) AND 1. SMT.RENUKA PARASHURAM GURAV AGE 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O KATAGALI VILLAGE - 591 302 TALUKA KHANAPUR DISTRICT BELAGAVI.
2. MR. PARASHARAM LAXMAN GURAV AGE 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE R/O KATAGALI VILLAGE - 591 302 TALUKA - KHANAPUR DISTRICT - BELAGAVI.
3. MR. VILAS LAXMAN GURAV AGE 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE R/O KATAGALI VILLAGE - 591 302 TALUKA - KHANAPUR DISTRICT - BELAGAVI.
4. MR. PRATAP PARASHARAM GURAV AGE 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE R/O KATAGALI VILLAGE - 591 302 TALUKA - KHANAPUR DISTRICT - BELAGAVI.
5. MR. SUNIL PARASHARAM GURAV AGE 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE R/O KATAGALI VILLAGE - 591 302 TALUKA - KHANAPUR DISTRICT - BELAGAVI.
6. SMT. SAVITRI W/O LAXMAN GURAV AGE 76 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O TOPINKATTI - 591 302 TALUKA - KHANAPUR DISTRICT - BELGAUM 7. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DISTRICT BELAGAVI - 590 001.
8. MR. JUDE DE SOUZA AGE: MAJOR, R/O H.NO.E-166 NEAR HOLY SPIRIT CHURCH, MARGAO, GOA – 403 601. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R7) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.6.2.2017 VIDE ANNEX-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU, IN APPEAL NO.927/2016 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent No.7.
2. A short question falls for consideration as petitioners are calling in question interim order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeals No. 926, 927 & 928/2016 filed before it under Section 118(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, ‘the Act’).
3. Petitioners claim to be owners of lands in question.
Whereas, respondents 1 to 6 claim to be tenants of the lands in question. They filed Form No.7A before the competent authority seeking grant of land as per the provisions contained under Section 77A of the Act. The said application, after enquiry, was rejected by respondent No.7 herein. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent – tenants preferred three separate appeals before the Tribunal. Along with the appeal memo, respondent – tenants filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC praying for an interim order. Petitioners resisted the said applications by filing objections. The Tribunal has allowed the applications granting stay of the order dated 01.10.2016 passed by respondent No.7 herein till the disposal of the appeals. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that as statutory appeals had been filed before it, till the disposal of the same, the subject matter of the appeals had to be kept in tact, as otherwise effective relief could not be granted to the successful party.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the claim and the prima facie case made out including maintainability of the application filed under Section 77A of the Act. It is his main contention that as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of LOKAYYA POOJARY & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS – ILR 2012 KAR 4345, scope of enquiry before the Assistant Commissioner as per the provisions contained under Section 77A of the Act is limited to find out from the official records whether applicant was a tenant as on the appointed date and the land had been vested in the State; that without examining this crucial aspect, the Tribunal granted the interim order.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, I find that at this stage, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the contentions. Pending disposal of the statutory Appeal pending before it, the Tribunal has granted an interim order. Hence, no case is made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Suffice to observe that in a matter like this, the Tribunal is duty bound to expeditiously dispose of the case, as otherwise, it will result in serious and recurring prejudice and loss to the petitioners who have suffered an interim order at the hands of the Tribunal. It is also necessary to notice that petitioner No.1 who is aged about 83 years is a senior citizen. Therefore, the Tribunal has to ensure that the matter is disposed of expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of declining to interfere in the matter.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent No.7 within three weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS