The principle of natural justice should not be stretched to assist a person who was aware of the proceedings and effectively participated through another party.

P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J, J.

( 1 ). THOUGH this petition is posted for preliminary hearing in 'b' group, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents-1 and 2, ft is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in this petition are the legal heirs of one late Lakshmana Gowda.

( 3 ) IN this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 9th February, 1988, passed by the 1st respondent, confirming the order dated 27th May, 1987, passed by the 2nd respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 5 (1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), declaring the sale of land measuring 5 acres in Sy. No. 283, old No. 174, situated at Makodu village, Avathi hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk, as null and void and further directing that the possession of the said land should be handed over to the 3rd respondent. Copies of the order dated 9th February, 1988 and 27th may, 1987, have been produced as Annexure-A and B, respectively.

( 4 ) SRI A. G. Shivanria, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the orders impugned are illegal and liable to be quashed by this Court, as the said orders came to be passed in disregard to the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Section 5 of the Act. He further submitted that the 1st petitioner is the wife, Petitioners-2 to 4 are children and the 4th Respondent is the brother of one Lakshmana Gowda. According to the Learned counsel, the land in question was though purchased in the name of ramanna (i. e. the 4th respondent) by means of registered Sale Deed dated 21st July, 1966; subsequently the said land was released in favour of the said Lakshmana Gowda by means of registered release Deed dated 6th May, 1980; and therefore, the said lakshmana Gowda having become the owner of the land in question should have been heard by the 2nd respondent, before passing the order Annexure-B. He further submitted that pursuant to the Release deed dated 6th May 1980, executed by the 4th respondent in favour of Lakshmana Gowda, the name of the said Lakshmana Gowda came to be entered in the revenue records; and further the 4th respondent, who was notified of the proceedings by the 2nd respondent had filed Statement of Objections before the 2nd respondent bringing to his notice that the said Lakshmana Gowda had acquired right, title and interest in respect of the land in question by virtue of the Release Deed, referred to above, and under these circumstances, the 2nd respondent has seriously erred in law in proceeding to pass the order Annexure-B without hearing the said lakshmana Gowda.

( 5 ) SRI M. Siddagangaiah, Learned Government Pleader, supported the orders impugned.

( 6 ) NO doubt, it is true that the registered Release Deed dated 6th May, 1980, came to be executed by the 4th respondent conveying his interest in the said land in favour of his brother aforesaid lakshmana Gowda, and the same was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent by means of Statement of Objections filed by the 4th respondent. Then the question is as to whether the orders impugned are liable to be quashed solely on the ground that the said Lakshmana Gowda was not heard before passing the orders impugned. My answer is in the negative. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed on three grounds: Firstly, on the ground that the said Lakshmana Gowda, who was aware of the proceedings pending before the 2nd respondent having taken a chance of getting his rights in respect of the land in question adjudicated upon through his brother, the 4th respondent herein, after his death, the petitioners who claim interest to the land in question through him cannot now be permitted to challenge the orders impug

Click Here to Read the rest of this document