Karnataka High Court
Sri.Purushottam S/O Vinayak Kulkarni vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, N.K.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. D.H. WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
Writ Appeal No.31137/2012 (GM-ST/RN)
Between:
1. Sri. Purushottam,
S/o. Vinayak Kulkarni,
Age: 80 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Ganga Vihar Singh, D-64,
Chembure Road, Chunbatti,
Mumbai, Maharashtra State.
2. Sri. Madhukar,
S/o. Vinayak Kulkarni,
Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Ohm Society Building,
Gambawal (West), Dist. Thane,
Mumbai, Maharashtra State.
3. Venkatesh @ Venkappa,
S/o. Vinayak Kulkarni,
Age: 60 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o. Yogikolla Road,
Extn., Gokak,
Dist. Belgaum.
Srinivas, S/o. Balavant Kulkarni,
Since deceased by LRs.
2
4. Balavant, S/o. Shrinivas Kulkarni,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Fulagaddi,
Tq: Gokak,
Dist. Belgaum.
5. Venkatehs, S/o. Shrinivas Kulkarni,
Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Fulagaddi, Tq: Gokak,
Dist: Belgaum.
6. Hanamant, S/o. Shrinivas Kulkarni,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Fulagaddi, Tq: Gokak,
Dist. Belgaum.
7. Smt. Laxmibai, W/o. Shrinivas Kulkarni,
Age: 75 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Fulagaddi, Tq: Gokak,
Dist.Belgaum.
8. Smt. Neelawwa, W/o. Narayan Deshpande,
Age: 68 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Fulagaddi, Tq: Gokak,
Dist. Belgaum.
9. Smt. Malawwa, W/o. Ashok Daftardar,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Shindikurbet, Tq: Gokak,
Dist. Belgaum.
...Appellants
(By Shri.R.M.Kulkarni, Advocate)
And
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
3
2. The District Registrar and
Asst. Commissioner for Stamps,
D.C.Compound, Belgaum.
3. Balappa, S/o. Kareppa Sanadi,
Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Fulagaddi,
Tq: Gokak,
Dist. Belgaum.
... Respondents
(By Shri. Mahesh Wodeyar, AGA for R1 and 2;
Shri. S.G. Kadadakatti, Advocate for R3)
******
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order
dated 24.8.2012 in W.P.No.66041/2012 passed by learned
Single Judge disposing the writ petition and observing that
the said question can be kept open to be adjudicated in an
appropriate proceeding, in the interest of justice and equity.
This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing,
this day, N.K. Patil J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants, assailing the correctness or legality of the impugned order dated 24.08.2012 of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.66041/2012, have presented this writ appeal.
4
2. In the writ petition filed by the appellants, they had sought quashing of the order dated 15.02.2010 (Annexure-A) passed by the District Registrar, Belgaum.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
4. After careful perusal of the order impugned, we do not find any error of law or material irregularity in disposing of the writ petition, with the observation that the question of procedure sought to be adopted could be kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceedings. The appellants had, in the petition before learned Single Judge of this Court, sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the District Registrar, reducing the amount of penalty on the stamp duty required to be paid, by exercising the powers under Section 34(a) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. And the appellants, as defendants in the pending suit was aggrieved by that order.
5
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, submitted at the outset that the appeal filed by appellants is liable to be dismissed as the appellants have not made out any good grounds for interference. Further he pointed out sub Section (5) of Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and submitted that in fact the appellants have an effective, alternative, efficacious and inexpensive remedy of filing an appeal before the competent authority and without exhausting such remedy, they are not entitled to invoke the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submits that the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. In light of the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and after perusal of the impugned order, we do not find any error or material irregularity in disposing of the writ petition, with the observation that the question of procedure which was adopted could 6 be kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding and the respondent No.3 was already directed to make an application if there were any arithmetical mistake. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the appellants have got an effective, alternative, efficacious and inexpensive remedy of filing an appeal under sub- Section (5) of Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 before the competent authority and without exhausting the said remedy, the appellants are not entitled to invoke the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed as devoid of merit.
SD/-
CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-
JUDGE BMV*