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 Nos. 1154-56 OF 2018 (LR-RES) BETWEEN:
SHRI. V. VISWANATHA SETTY SON OF LATE VENKATARAYAPPA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.16, 4TH FLOOR, VICTORY AVENUE, RD COMPLEX, HOSPITAL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 053. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P. DAROJI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 UNDER SECTION 77A, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA -561 203.
4. SHRI M. NARAYANASWAMY SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA, MAJOR, APPASANDRA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK-562 114. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
5. SHRI V. RAJANNA SON OF LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
6. SHRI SOMAIAH @ MANJUNATHA SON OF LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
7. SMT. RATHNAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT INJINAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK-562 114. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NOS 4 TO 7 ARE DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 24/04/2019) (BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3, RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 ARE DELETED) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 1/2/2018 IN WP 46492-494/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN PARA 12 OF THE ORDER, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ appeals are filed being aggrieved by the observations made at paragraph No.12 of the order dated 1.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.46492-494 of 2017.
2. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the said paragraph No.12. The observations made at paragraph No.12 of the impugned order dated 01.02.2018, are the opinion of the learned Single Judge. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge is that respondent No.4 has filed a false document and has sworn to a false affidavit. It is further held that there is a doubt “whether there is any role of the counsel appearing for him in this proceedings. However, this Court would advise learned counsel Sri. Vishwanatha Shetty appearing for respondent No.4 in these writ petitions to desist from supporting such malpractice.”
3. We are of the considered view, that the learned Counsel has no role to play in the same. If that is the view of the learned Single Judge, then the persons according to him who have any role to play in the fraud should have been given notice, before such remarks are made against him. Merely to make remarks and then proceeding further in the matter is not just and proper. When the Court is of the view, that false documents have been prepared and false affidavit has been sworn to, there are substantial provisions in law to enable the Court to deal with such a situation rather than making remarks against the learned counsel appearing for the parties, which in our view is not proper.
4. Hence the writ appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the observations made at paragraph 12 as stated shall stand deleted from the records.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT: KHV