IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, and Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, in determining the maintainability of Cross-Objections in Writ Appeals.

JUDGMENT :

Veerappa, J.

Though the present Cross Objection along with Writ Appeal are posted for final hearing, Sri M.B.Nargund, Learned Additional Solicitor General of India along with Sri Jayakara Shetty, Learned Counsel for respondent No.1/Union of India raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of cross objection in the writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

I. BRIEF FACTS OFTHE CASE:

2. The State Government issued preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 09.06.2005 proposing to acquire various extents of lands situated at Benniganahalli, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru, for the benefit of Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO). On 22.08.2008, one of the land owner viz., Smt.Krishnamma filed W.P.No.21948/2005, which came to be allowed in part, quashing the invocation of urgency clause and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to give an opportunity of hearing under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Considering the objections filed by the cross- objector, the Land Acquisition Officer by the Order dated 19.01.2010 opined that the land in question is not required for the purpose of acquisition. On 07.10.2010, the State Government, issued final notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. When the cross-objector filed W.P.No.912/2011 questioning the legality and correctness of the preliminary and final notifications, the Learned Single Judge, by the Order dated 30.04.2014, allowed the writ petition and quashed the notifications. The said order was challenged by the Union of India in W.A.No.2122/2015. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by the Order dated 20.04.2016 directed the parties to maintain status quo. The cross objector filed the present Cross Objection on 30.07.2022 and also entered appearance in W.A.No.2122/2015, on 09.08.2017.

3. When the matter was posted for hearing, Learned Counsel ASG for the respondent No.1/appellant raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of Writ Appeal Cross Objection No.2/2022 in W.A.No.2122/2015.

4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

II. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

5. Sri M.B.Nargund, Learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondent No.1/appellant contended that filing of an Appeal and Revision is the substantive right of a party and filing of the Cross Objection in Writ Appeal is not the substantive right. He would further contend that the provisions of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages that, ‘the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suit shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction’. Therefore, it shall not include a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereby, it cannot be held that the provisions contained in Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code are applicable per se to the writ proceedings.

6. Learned ASG further contended that, Rule 6 of Chapter VI-A of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, depicts that, subject to the provisions of Chapter VI-A, the rules applicable to Regular First Appeals and the provisions of Orders XLI and XLI-A of Code of Civil Procedure, shall as far as may be, apply to Original Side Appeals. Thereby, the cross-objection filed by the respondents in the Writ Appeal No.2122/2015 is not maintainable. He further contended that, if the respondents are aggrieved by the order or finding of the Learned Single Judge, there is no impediment for them to file separate Appeal under the provision of Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

7. Learned ASG further contended that, the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puran Singh And Others vs. State Of Punjab And Others, AIR 1996 SC 1092 was with regard to question as to whether the provisions made under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings un