SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 430

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
C.S. Umesh – Appellant
Versus
T.V. Gangaraju & Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2278-2279 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 14513-14514 of 2020)
Decided on : 11-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S N Bhat, Sr. Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, AOR Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwin V Kotemath, Adv. Mr. Yogesh V Kotemath, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Anchit Singla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR

Judicial modifications to orders must adhere to established legal procedures, ensuring all parties are notified to uphold principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Application for occupancy rights - The appellant's father was granted occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal, which were later modified. The High Court's orders were challenged due to procedural impropriety in modifying earlier judgments without proper notice to the respondents. (Paras 11-12)

(B) Judicial propriety - The court emphasized that modifications to judicial orders must follow established legal procedures and cannot be made unilaterally or without notice to affected parties. (Paras 11-13)

Facts of the case:
The appellant's father was granted occupancy rights in 1981, which were later modified in 2007. The appellant sought further modifications through an oral request, leading to confusion and subsequent appeals.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the High Court's orders and restored the original writ petition for a fresh hearing, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures.

Issues: The main issues included the propriety of modifying judicial orders without notice and the confusion arising from such modifications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that judicial modifications must adhere to procedural norms, and unilateral changes are impermissible, reaffirming the importance of natural justice.

Result: Appeals allowed with costs.

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.09.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.683/2018 as well as the order passed in Review Petition No.535/2019 arising out of Writ Appeal No.683/2018 dated 04.03.2020, these appeals have been filed by the persons who claimed to be the tenants and who had filed Form No.7 before the concerned Land Tribunal.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are the appellant’s father Siddaveerappa was stated to be in possession of land measuring 23 Acres and 20 guntas in a certain survey number in Tavarekere village, Magadi Taluk as a tenant. He filed an application before the Land Tribunal (for short “Land Tribunal”), Magadi Taluk (now in Bangalore South Taluk) seeking grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘1961 Act’ for short) in respect of Survey No. 150 and 151 measuring 9 acres and 14 acres 20 guntas respectively. By an order dated 11.04.1981, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the appellant’s father. Pursuant to the said order dated 11.04.1981, the Secretary of the Tribunal issued Form No. 10 being certificate of registration of tenancy. Consequently, the appellant’s father was cultivating the said land in question and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land.

However, in the year 2004, the appellant made an application before the Tribunal seeking rectification/ modification of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 11.04.1981 for correcting the extent of land and survey number in respect of occupancy granted received by the appellant’s father by order dated 11.04.1981. By order dated 04.09.2004, the Tribunal dismissed the said question on the ground that it does not have the power to modify its own orders. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 45408 of 2004 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dated 04.09.2004. By an order dated 02.09.2005, the High Court quashed the order passed by the Tribunal dated 04.09.2004 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal.

4. The High Court set aside the endorsement dated 04.09.2004 passed by the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal for a fresh disposal in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in the said order and after due notice to all parties. Pursuant to the remand, the Land Tribunal passed order dated 12.10.2007 by which the prayers sought for by the appellant herein was granted.

Pursuant to the said remand, the Tribunal by order dated 12.10.2007 allowed the application filed by the appellant to correct the extent of land and survey number and modified its earlier order dated 11.04.1981. Consequently, the competent authority issued a Certificate in favour of the appellant in respect of Sy No. 151 measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas and Sy.No. 153/1 measuring 21 acres situated at Tavarekere Village.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondents herein preferred W.P.No. 1331 of 2008 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dated 12.10.2007. By the order dated 25.02.2013, the learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ petition. ‘Paragraph 6’ of the said order is of crucial importance and the same reads as under:

    “6. It is made clear that in respect of Sy.No.153 respondent applicant is not entitled since grant was not granted in respect of Sy.No.153. What is modified is only in respect of 153/1 which is to be read as Sy.No.150 and 151. In terms of the above the petition is disposed off.”

6. Thereafter, in the year 2016, the appellant seems to have made an oral mention before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 1331 of 2008 seeking for rectififcation/correction of the above order dated 25.02.2013. The learned Single Judge by way of “for being spoken to” passed a corrected order dated 19.01.2016. By way of the corrected order, the learned Single Judge has added a sentence in paragraph 6 of the order dated 25.02.2013. The mo

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top