Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31740
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200225/2019 (LR-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sangappa S/o Fakeerappa Badiger,
Since deceased by his LRs
1)
Smt. Laxmibai W/o Late Sangappa Badiger,
Age: 73 years, Occ: Household work
2)
Manappa S/o Late Sangappa Badiger,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture
3)
Devendrappa S/o Late Sangappa Badiger,
Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture
4)
Bheemappa S/o Late Sangappa Badiger,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture
5)
Chandrashekhar S/o Late Sangappa Badiger,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture
6)
Paniyappa S/o Late Sangappa Badiger
Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture
All are resident of Halerolli
Tq: Kolar, Dist: Vijayapur
… Appellants
(By Sri Vinayak Apte, Advocate)
2
AND:
1)
The State of Karnataka
Represented by it’s Secretary
Revenue Department
M.S.Building, Bangalore-560001
2)
The Land Tribunal
Basavana Bagewadi-586203
Dist: Vijayapur, by it’s Chairman
3)
Hanmappa S/o Kalappa Badiger
Since deceased by his LRs
3A)
Laxman S/o Late Hanamappa Badiger
Aged about: 63 years, Occ: Service
3B)
Shivappa S/o Late Hanamappa Badiger
Aged about: 65 years, Occ: Service
3C)
Gangadhar S/o Late Hanamappa Badiger
Aged about: 51 years, Occ: Agriculture
3D)
Kalappa S/o Late Hanamappa Badiger
Aged about: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture
Respondents 3(A) to (D) are
R/o Hanamapur, Tq: Basavana Bagewadi-586203
Dist: Vijayapur
... Respondents
[By Sri Mallikarjuc C. Basareddy, HCGP for R1 and R2;
Sri D.P. Ambekar, Advocate for R3 (A) to (D)]
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961, praying to call for the records in W.P.No.100455/2013
(LR-RES) and set aside the order dated 05.11.2019 of the learned Single
Judge and to allow the appeal.
This appeal coming on for orders this day, S.R.Krishna Kumar J.,
delivered the following:
3
Documents that are relevant and essential for the purpose of adjudication of a matter should be considered by the court before passing an order.
Headnote:
Fact of the Case:
The appellants claimed to be the legal representatives of one Fakeerappa Badiger who filed an application for registration of occupancy rights on the ground that he was a tenant in respect of the subject land. The Land Tribunal passed an order granting occupancy rights in favour of Sangappa in respect of the entire extent of 17 acres 3 guntas. However, the Land Tribunal passed another order purporting to grant occupancy rights in respect of 8 acres 2 guntas in the very same Sy.No.113 in favour of one Hanmappa Badiger. The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the second order, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The matter was remitted back to the learned Single Judge with a direction to reconsider the petition afresh and in accordance with law and after considering the rival contentions as well as the documents produced by the appellants as well as the legal representatives of respondent No.3 along with their respective applications.
Issues: Whether the Land Tribunal's second order granting occupancy rights in respect of 8 acres 2 guntas in favour of Hanmappa Badiger was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the documents sought to be produced by both sides were not placed before the learned Single Judge at the time of passing the impugned order and that the said documents were relevant material and essential for the purpose of adjudication of the matter. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh along with the documents produced by both sides.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The matter was remitted back to the learned Single Judge with a direction to reconsider the petition afresh and in accordance with law and after considering the rival contentions as well as the documents produced by the appellants as well as the legal representatives of respondent No.3 along with their respective applications.
This
appeal
by
the
writ
petitioner
in
W.P.No.100455/2013 is directed against the impugned order
dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge,
whereby the said petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are
as follows.
3. The appellants who were the writ petitioners before
the learned Single Judge claim to be the legal representatives
of one Fakeerappa Badiger who is said to have filed an
application in Form No.7 under Section 8 of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961 (KLR Act) for registration of
occupancy rights on the ground that he was a tenant in
respect of the subject land bearing Sy.No.113 to an extent of
17 acres 3 guntas of Halerolli village, Basavana Bagewadi
taluk, Vijayapur district. In the writ petition, the grievance of
the petitioner was that despite the Land Tribunal passing an
4
order dated 01.10.1981 granting occupancy rights in favour of
the aforesaid Sangappa in respect of the entire extent of 17
acres 3 guntas, the Land Tribunal passed one more order
dated 15.10.1981 purporting to grant occupancy rights in
respect of 8 acres 2 guntas in the very same Sy.No.113 in
favour of one Hanmappa Badiger, who was arrayed as
respondent No.3 to the petition. The said petition was
contested by the aforesaid Hanmappa Badiger before the
learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned
Single Judge confirmed the order dated 15.10.1981 passed by
the Land Tribunal thereby rejecting the petition filed by the
appellants herein who are before this Court by way of the
present appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned HCGP for R1 and R2 and learned counsel for
respondent Nos.3(A) to 3(D) and perused the material on
record.
5
5. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellants
have filed an application in I.A.No.2/2021 under Order 41 Rule
27 CPC for production of additional evidence-documents in
support of their claim. Similarly, the legal representatives of
the original respondent No.3 have also filed an application in
I.A.No.3/2021 for permission to produce additional documents.
6. Though several contentions have been urged by
both sides in support of their respective claims, a perusal of
the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as
well as the documents now sought to be produced by the
appellants as well as the legal representatives of respondent
No.3 will indicate that the documents sought to be produced
by both sides were not placed before the learned Single Judge
at the time of passing the impugned order. It is also relevant
to state that a perusal of the documents sought to be
produced by both sides will indicate that the said documents
are relevant material and essential for the purpose of
adjudication of the matter and the learned Single Judge did
not have the benefit of considering or looking into the said
6
documents before passing the impugned order. Under these
circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the
merits/demerits of the rival contentions and in order to enable
the learned Single Judge to reconsider the rival claims in the
light of the documents now produced by the appellants as well
as the respondents in the present appeal, we deem it just and
appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the
matter back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration
afresh along with the documents produced by both sides viz.,
I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021, in accordance with law.
7. In view of the foregoing, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021 are
hereby allowed. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i)
The Writ Appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 05.11.2019 passed
in W.P.No.100455/2013 is hereby set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the learned
Single Judge with a direction to reconsider the
petition afresh and in accordance with law and
after considering the rival contentions as well
7
as the documents produced by the appellants
a
