JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in these two cases, they were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed.

2. The facts of the case reveal that W.P.No.7320/2017 filed by the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited at the Principal Seat at Bengaluru is arising out of the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi, in Execution No.51/2005, which is arising out of LAC.No.10/1998. The order dated 11.11.2016 was also under challenge passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi, in Execution No.51/2005.

3. The undisputed facts makes it very clear that Gopalkrishna/respondent in the writ petition is a resident of Hallavalli Post, Kalleshwar Taluk, Ankola, Uttara Kannada District and the execution proceedings are pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Dharwad Bench. Notices were issued in the matter and the sole respondent submitted an application to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka on 29.7.2018 stating that he is aged about 69 years, the dispute relates to land acquisition and his land was acquired in 1993. It was stated categorically by him that the Court at Sirsi comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court and the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could not have been filed in the Principal Seat at Bengaluru.

4. The matter was listed before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has passed an order dated 11.2.2021 directing the Registry to place the matter before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for consideration and for constituting a Full Bench.

5. The order dated 11.2.2021 is reproduced as under:

"The orders dated 27.10.2016 and 11.11.2016 challenged in this writ petition have emanated from Execution No.51/2005 pending on the file of learned Sr. Civil Judge, Sirsi; the 1st respondent-Gopal Krishna Goankar has addressed a letter dated 27.09.2018 requesting the Registrar General for transferring the writ petition to the Dharwad Bench of this court since Sirsi town is comprised in the territorial jurisdiction of the said Bench by virtue of the notification dated 04.06.2008 whereby two Circuit Benches outside Bengaluru had been established and also the Presidential Notification dated 14.08.2013 whereby the same became the Permanent Benches ie., one at Dharwad and the other at Kalaburagi.

2. A short but significant question as to the jurisdiction of the said two Benches to the exclusion of the Principal Bench at Bengaluru, in respect of cases comprised in their territorial jurisdiction has arisen for consideration in this Writ Petition. A Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Wajid vs- State of Karnataka, (2014) ILR(Kar) 5805 having treated the said question and answered at para 44 as under:

44. The High Court registry under the guise of scrutinizing the Writ Petition cannot raise an objection regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition and call upon the petitioner or his Advocate to take back the papers and present it before the Benches at Dharwad or Gulbarga. When we have held that neither the Hon’ble Chief Justice nor the Full Court of the High Court has the jurisdiction to decide whether any particular Bench in the High Court of Karnataka has the jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition and that the said issue has to be decided in an individual case by the Judge or Judges hearing the matter, the High Court office cannot raise such an objection and ask the petitioner or his Advocate to comply with the same. The party or his Advocate are not expected to convince the High Court registry on this aspect. Assuming that the High Court registry is of the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in any particular Bench, what they are expected to do is to put up a note in the order sheet, bringing the said fact to the notice of the Learned Judge and list the Writ Petition before the Court