Karnataka High Court
Sri D M Ramakrishnappa vs S Venkatesh on 9 June, 2020
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. I. ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 904 / 2015 (KLR)
BETWEEN
SRI D. M. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE J.V. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT DASARAHALLI HOBLI
JADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI S. VENKATESH
S/O GURUVA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT ATTIRATA VILLAGE
JADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(a) SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE S. VENKATESH
AGED 57 YEARS
1(b) MUNIRATHNAMMA
D/O LATE S. VENKATESH
AGED 35 YEARS
-2-
1(c) VIJAYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE S. VENKATESH
AGED 32 YEARS
1(d) SANGEETHA
D/O LATE S. VENKATESH
AGED 29 YEARS
1(e) AMBIKA
D/O LATE S. VENKATESH
AGED 27 YEARS
1(f) SOUJANYA
D/O LATE S. VENKATESH
AGED 25 YEARS
1(g) SUSHMA
D/O LATE S. VENKATESH
AGED 23 YEARS
1(h) ANJANKUMAR
S/O LATE S. VENKATESH
AGED 21 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT ATTIRATA VILLAGE
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 114
2. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT MAGABALA VILLAGE
JADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114
3. THE TAHASILDAR
HOSAKOTE TALUK
HOSAKOTE - 562 114
4. COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION
OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION
BY THE TAHASILDAR
-3-
HOSAKOTE TALUK
HOSAKOTE - 572 114
5. SRI D.K. MUNIYAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
5(a) SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE D.K. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
5(b) SRI VENKATESHAMURTHY
S/O LATE D.K. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
5(c) SRI PADNABHA
S/O LATE D.K. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
5(d) SRI PURUSHOTHAMA
S/O LATE D.K. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5(e) SMT. RUKMINI
D/O LATE D.K. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5(f) SMT. KAMALAMMA @ BHARATHI
D/O LATE D.K. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
5(g) SMT. LALITHA
D/O LATE D.K. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS. 5(a) TO 5(g) ARE THE
RESIDENTS OF DASARAHALLI HOBLI
JADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.N. PRAVEEN KUMAR & ASSTS. FOR R1(a-h);
SRI VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
-4-
SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R3 & R4;
R5(a) TO R5(g) - SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.21633/2012 (KLR) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF
JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2016 seeking condonation of delay of 373 days in filing the appeal. In view of the sufficient cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the third and fourth respondents. Rest of the respondents were the original writ petitioners who have been served with the notice. The appellant is the first writ petitioner.
-5-
3. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties with reference to their status before the learned Single Judge.
4. According to the case of the writ petitioners, a Committee constituted under Section 49 (a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the said Act of 1964') passed a resolution on 7th June 1993 providing for regularization of unauthorized occupation of the petitioners in respect of the land subject matter of this appeal. On the basis of the said resolution dated 7th June 1993 passed by the Committee, on 9th June 1993, the Tahasildar issued a saguvali chit in favour of the petitioners. An appeal was preferred by the first and second respondents against the recommendation of the Committee dated 8th June 1993. The said appeal was preferred to the Assistant Commissioner by invoking sub-rule (6) of Rule 108-D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short 'the said Rules'). The Assistant Commissioner, by the order dated 4th June 2012, allowed the appeal preferred by the first and second respondents. Being aggrieved by the -6- order of the Assistant Commissioner, a writ petition was filed by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
5. Apart from the submissions on merits, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant (first writ petitioner) contended that before the learned Single Judge, a specific contention was raised that the appeal preferred by the first and second respondents before the Assistant Commissioner on 31st July 2007 was barred by time. It was also contended that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against a dead person. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the issue of bar of limitation has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that no fault can be found with the order of the Assistant Commissioner on merits of the controversy. He submitted that only after a writ petition of the year 2004 filed by the second respondent was allowed by the order dated 27th February 2004 that the first and second respondents -7- became aware of the impugned recommendation dated 8th June 1993 and therefore, the issue of bar of limitation will not arise.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the third and fourth respondents have supported the impugned judgment and order.
8. We have considered the submissions. As stated earlier, an appeal was preferred by the first and second respondents on 31st July 2007 for challenging the resolution of the Committee passed on 7th June 1993. So, the appeal was preferred 14 years after the impugned resolution was passed. Even assuming that no specific period of limitation is provided to prefer an appeal under sub-rule (6) of Rule 108-D of the said Rules, the law consistently laid down by the Apex Court is very settled that even if a specific period of limitation is not provided for preferring an appeal, the same has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the present case, the appeal was filed after a lapse of 14 years. Whether it was filed within a -8- reasonable time or not depends on the factual aspects of the case. In the impugned order, there is no specific finding recorded regarding the month and / or the year in which the first and second respondents became aware of the recommendation dated 8th June 1993.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that in paragraph 7 thereof, the learned Single Judge has specifically recorded the contentions raised by the writ petitioners regarding the bar of limitation. However, in the entire impugned judgment and order, the issue of bar of limitation is not even discussed and considered.
10. As there is no finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on the contention specifically raised by the petitioners regarding the bar of limitation which goes root of the matter, it will not be appropriate for this Court to record a finding in the appeal for the first time. The reason is if the learned Single Judge records a finding on the issue of limitation, the aggrieved party can always assail the same by preferring an appeal. In the circumstances, there is no option -9- but to set aside the impugned judgment and order by remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge so that the issue of bar of limitation can be gone into.
11. We may make one aspect very clear that the impugned order has been set aside only on the ground that the contention regarding the issue of bar of limitation which was specifically agitated by the writ petitioners was not dealt with and decided by the learned Single Judge. This order shall not be construed as any adjudication on merits of the controversy.
12. Accordingly, we pass the following order;
(i) The impugned judgment and order dated 28th January 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. Writ petition No.21633/2012 (KLR) is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge;
(ii) The learned Single Judge will decide the writ petition afresh by dealing with all the contentions including the contention regarding the issue of bar of limitation.
- 10 -
Considering the fact that we are passing the order of remand in the writ petition filed in the year 2012, we are sure that the learned Single Judge will give necessary priority to the disposal of the writ petition in accordance with law;
(iii) If the respondents desire to place on record any additional documents, they are free to do so within a period of one month from today by filing a statement of objections;
(iv) The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE MH