Karnataka High Court
Mr. Suresh vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.P.Nos.8270-71/2013 (KLR-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1.MR. SURESH,
S/O VENKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.23-9-627,
ATTAVAR, MANGALORE-575 001.
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
2.MR.MOHAN BHAKTHA,
S/O LAKSHMAN BHAKTA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.21-3-138,
SUBHASH NAGAR,
HOIGE BAZAAR,
MANGALORE-575 001,
DAKSHINA KANNADA. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV.)
AND:
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
2
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALORE-575 001.
3.MR.SEETHARAM SHETTY,
S/O LATE CHANDU SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
602, ROSE COTE,
BENDOORWALL,
MANGALORE-575 002.
4.THE COMMISSIONER,
CORPORATION OF MANGALORE,
LALBAGH, MANGALORE-575 003,
D.K.
5.M/S MILAN HOMES,
NO.12, GRACE TOWER,
BIJAI-KAVOOR ROAD,
BIJAI, MANGALORE-575 004.
BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI.RAJASHEKARA BALLAL. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: B.VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI.M.N.UMASHANKAR, ADV. FOR R3,
SRI.A.K.VASANTH AND SRI.M.K.GIRISH ADVS. FOR R4,
SRI.S.B.PAVIN, ADV. FOR R5)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.9.2.2012 VIDE
ANNX-L & ETC.,
3
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this writ petition in public interest, assailing the Government Order dated 09/02/2012, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-L.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that land bearing Sy.No.124 ad-measuring 36 cents at Attavara Village of Mangalore Town, is a Government land and is classified as 'paramboke land' in the revenue records. That in respect of the said land, Original Suit No.30/2000 was filed by respondent No.3 seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the land and an order to restrain the Government Officers from making any alterations in the revenue records pertaining to the said land. The said suit was decreed. Against which the respondent-authorities had filed R.A.No.6/2009 before the I Addl. District Judge, Dakshina Kannada at Mangalore. The said Regular Appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the State Government initially 4 took a decision to file an appeal against the said judgment and decree passed in the Regular Appeal. However, subsequently it appears that the matter was re-examined by the Government and it was decided not to file an appeal. As a consequence, the earlier order dated 30/08/2010, which was to file an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.6/2009 was withdrawn by the impugned order dated 09/02/2012. The grievance of the petitioners is that on account of the impugned order dated 09/02/2012, by which the Government has decided not to file an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.6/2009, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.30/2009 and R.A.No.6/2009 would attain finality and as a result, Government 'Paramboke land' would come to the ownership of the third respondent herein.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the last occasion as well as today.
5
4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate today has filed a memo on behalf of the State-respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, enclosing Order No.RT 628 TRM 2009 (LC), Bangalore, dated 11/06/2013. By this order, the earlier order dated 09/02/2012 impugned in this writ petition is withdrawn. He states that on the basis of the order dated 11/06/2013, steps would be initiated to file a regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the I Addl. District Judge, Dakshina Kannada District at Mangalore in R.A.No.6/2009 and therefore, the grievance of the petitioners are assuaged and hence, the writ petition could be disposed.
5. Learned counsel, perusing the said memo has, however, stated that, no doubt the State has now decided to file an appeal against the judgment and decree in the regular appeal, but this decision must be taken to its logical conclusion and the State must indeed file an appeal and pursue the same in all seriousness.
6
6. In response, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that on instructions of the Section Officer, Sri.Venkata Giraiah, Land Revenue Department, Bangalore, that within a period of one month steps would be taken to file an appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed in the regular appeal.
7. Having regard to the statements made by the learned Addl. Government Advocate, we are of the view that the grievance raised in this writ petition has been addressed and the writ petition would not call for any further orders. It is needless to observe that the State Government has now taken a decision in right earnest to assail the order passed in R.A.No.6/2009 and to take steps within the stipulated time to pursue an appeal in all seriousness.
8. It is also noted that the appeal intended to be filed by the State would obviously be delayed. If an application for condonation of delay is made, then the fact that the pendency of these proceedings before this Court made 7 the State Government to take a decision to file an appeal, would be taken into consideration by the appropriate Court, while considering the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE S*