Karnataka High Court
Sri S R Sanjeeva Murthy vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 April, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 5th DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.4730/2012(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 SRI S R SANJEEVA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O.LATE R.T.RAMANNA
HEREDITARY ARCHAK
VICHARANA KARTHA
POKALPURI MUTT,
SIRA TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT ... APPELLANT
(By Sri : KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADV. )
AND :
1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2 THE THASILDAR
SIRA TALUK,
SIRA.
3 SRI S N KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
S/O.LATE NARASIMHAIAH
PRESIDENT, AKHILA
KARNATAKA LADARA SANGHA(R)
SIRA TOWN.
4 SRI B V VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O.LATE VENKATARAMANPPA,
2
SECRETARY,
AKILA KARNATAKA LADARA SANGHA(R )
SIRA TOWN.
5 SRI B V PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O LATE VENKATRAMANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT BYADARAHALLI
HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DIST.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : SHASHI DHAR S.KARAMADI, HCGP FOR R1 &
R2;
SRI.RAVI & N.KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3;
R4, R5 SERVED (ABSENT) )
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 2783/12 DATED 27/6/12
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order dt.27th June 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.NO.2783/12 partly allowing the Writ Petition and issuing directions, the respondents have filed the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is bad in law liable to be set aside. That the order passed by the Learned Single Judge goes beyond the prayer of the petitioner. That the prayer 3 of the petitioner was to quash the impugned order passed by the D.C. in INA 4/02-03 dt.3.1.2012. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the said order. However, the 1st respondent, namely the Deputy Commissioner was permitted to conduct an auction of usufructs of the trees located in Sy.No.57. Therefore this direction is inappropriate.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order.
4. On hearing learned counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that appropriate relief is called for. The subject matter in dispute pertains to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in INA No.4/2002-03 dt.3.1.2012. The learned Single Judge while considering the same quashed the said order. However, while so doing, the reasons recorded there in, permitted the 1st respondent to conduct auction of usufructs of the trees located in Sy.No.57. Admittedly Sy.No.57 does not pertain to INA.NO.4/2002-03. They pertain to proceedings which are the subject matter in consideration in INA NO.54/83-
84. Therefore the learned Single Judge has committed an 4 error in granting a direction on a dispute which were not prayed for. He should have given relief in so far as INA No.4/2002-03 is concerned. No such order could have been passed for a dispute which was not the subject matter involved.
5. We are of the considered view, that the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the said direction.
6. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dt. 27th June, 2012 passed in W.P.NO.2783/2012 by the Learned Single Judge is modified. Para-4 of the order directing the 1st respondent to conduct the auction as well as para-5 of the order directing the amount deposited to be refunded to the 2nd respondent is set aside. Rest of the order sustains.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak