Back
Karnataka High Court
V.VIRUPAKSHAPPA - Appellant
Versus
DANGADI HANUMANTHAPPA - Respondent
Decided On : 03-08-78
W.P. : 2529 of 1977
Interim Order - Land Tribunal - Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Sec. 48, Sec. 48a - The court discussed the validity of an interim order issued by the Land Tribunal in a dispute over occupancy rights. The court considered the requirement of a unanimous decision by the Tribunal, the legislative intent, and the discretionary powers of the Tribunal under Sec. 48c of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed against an interim order of the Land Tribunal in a dispute over occupancy rights. The Tribunal had upheld the claim of one party for an interim injunction and rejected the claim of the other party. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds of lack of unanimity and extraneous considerations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the majority opinion of the Tribunal members should prevail in case of differences of opinion, as the Act and rules were silent on this aspect. The court also noted that the Tribunal had discretionary powers to issue interlocutory orders and that the interim order, while not ideally worded, did not warrant quashing or modification.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the interim order, the requirement of unanimity in Tribunal decisions, and the exercise of discretionary powers by the Tribunal under Sec. 48c of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of specific provisions requiring unanimity, the majority view of the Tribunal should prevail. The court also emphasized the discretionary nature of the Tribunal's powers under Sec. 48c and the limited grounds for interference with its orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
( 2 ) THE proceeding is still pending before the Tribunal. The order in question is an interim order.
( 3 ) THE petitioner, Virupakshappa, and the first respondent, Dangadi hanumanthappa, are rival claimants for occupancy rights over a piece of land measuring 2 acres 59 cents in Sy. No. 116 of Amaravathi village, Hospet taluk. Both have filed applications under Sec. 48a of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ). Lingappa (Respt-2) jambanna (Respt-3) and Nandappa (Respt-4) are admittedly the owners of the land in question. 3a. Each of the claimants sought for a temporary injunction in his favour alleging that the other rival claimant was trying to interfere with his peaceful possession of the land in question and that he be restrained from doing so. The Tribunal, after recording their statements and hearing all concerned, upheld by a majority the claim of Dangadi Hanumanthappa for an interim in junction and rejected that of Virupakshappa.
( 4 ) THIS interim order is attacked mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is urged, relying on a decision of this Court, that this was not a case for preferential treatment with an interim injunction of one of the rival claimants at the cost of the other and that on the other hand an appointment of an interim receiver would have been just and proper. Secondly, it is stated that the order of the Tribunal, not being a unanimous decision of all the Members of the Tribunal was no decision at all in the eye of law, and therefore was liable to be quashed.
( 5 ) LET us first consider the latter submission. It is a fact that the impugned order is not a unanimous verdict, but is based on the majority opinion. Of the three members who participated in the proceeding on that day, the two non-official members have upheld the claim of Hanumanthappa and the Chairman of the Tribunal has dissented from their view. According to the Chairman, Hanumanthapppa was not entitled to any ad interim order in his favour as his claim for occupancy right itself was not on solid grounds. Virupakshapppa, according to the Chairman, was also not entitled to an interim order as he had failed to show the urgent necessity for such an order in his favour.-However, in view of the majority opinion of the two non-official members holding that Hanumanthappa should be granted an ad interim order in his favour the same was rendered as the decision of the Tribunal.
( 6 ) WHILE trying to substantiate his contention that a decision of the land Tribunal to be properly so called should be a unanimous verdict, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the Act and the rules made thereunder do not provide that majority view should prevail in case of differences amongst members, it should be taken that the intention of the legislature was that any decision of the Tribunal should only be a unanimous one. Otherwise according to him as in the case of several other enactments like the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976, Karataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and karnataka High Court Act, the legislature would have provided for a majority decision.
( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent and the learned Counsel for the State, argued that if gathered from the broad scheme of the Act it appears that the intention of the legislature was that in case of difference of opinion amongst the members of the Tribunal the majority view should prevail. In their view any other construe. tion in the circumstances of the case would lead to unfortunate consequences defeating the very purpose and the object of the Act.
( 8 ) THE Act received the assent of the President on 5-3-1962 and it came into force on 2-10-1965. There have been several ame
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
