Karnataka High Court
Sri B R Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
W.A. NO.875/2015
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 P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.875 OF 2015 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN :
SRI. B.R. RAMESH
S/O B. RANGAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A NO.679, L.V. NILAYA
2ND CROSS, M.G.ROAD
CHICKBALLAPUR
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101 ... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SHRI. R. BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE 1
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 009
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
2
W.A. NO.875/2015
4. TAHSILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
DEVANAHALLI-562 110
BANGALORE
5. MUNIYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
A) RAMESH
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 39 YEARS
B). NARASAMMA
D/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 48 YEARS
C). MADDURAMMA
D/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 46 YEARS
D). SRI. NARASIMHAIAYYA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 47 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A POOJANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110
6. THE NILGIRI DIARY (BANGALORE) PVT.LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE AT NO.171
BRIGADE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. C. KUMAR
S/O M. CHENNIPPAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
7. M/S. C & C HOTELS VENTURE PVT. LTD.,
REG OFF:7TH FLOOR
MERIAN COMMERCIAL TOWER
WINDSOR PLACE
JANPATH, NEW DELHI-1 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SHRI. K. SUMAN, C/R6;
SHRI. I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SHRI. YESHU MISHRA FOR
HARANAHALLI LAW PARTIES FOR R5 [A-D])
....
3
W.A. NO.875/2015
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.11723/2009 DATE 2.2.15.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.11.2019 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR. J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is presented challenging the common judgment and order dated 2nd February 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge insofar as it relates to order in W.P. No.11723/2009.
2. We have heard Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, Shri. I.THaranath Poojary, learned AGA for the State, Shri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Advocate for caveator/respondent No.6 and Shri. L.Yeshu Mishra, learned Advocate for respondent No.5(A-D).
3. Brief facts averred in the Memorandum of appeal are, on 25th May 1979 one Muniyappa was granted 4 acres of land in Sy. No.79 of Poojanahalli village, Devanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore Rural 4 W.A. NO.875/2015 District. He sold it to one S.M.Nagaraju and he in turn sold it to one B.Ramesh.
4. Muniyappa filed an application under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 for resumption of land. After prolonged proceedings before various authorities and this Court, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 17th December 2007 held the sale of land by Muniyappa void.
5. In the meanwhile, two companies namely M/s. Redwood Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and The Nilgiri Dairy (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., purchased 2 acres each from B.Ramesh.
6. In all, three writ petitions are filed inter alia praying to quash the said order dated 17th December 2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
7. Muniyappa and appellant are writ petitioners in W.P. No.3649/2008.
5W.A. NO.875/2015
8. M/s Redwood Enterprises has filed W.P.No.9643/2007 wherein appellant is described as legal representative of Muniyappa.
9. M/s. The Nilgiri Dairy (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. has filed Writ Petition No.11723/2009 wherein appellant is described as respondent No.6.
10. By the common impugned order, the Hon'ble Single Judge has recorded a finding of fact that the first sale has taken place after completion of 15 years inalienable period. He has recorded another finding of fact that Muniyappa belonged to Christian community and not to the Scheduled Caste.
11. Appellant claims to have purchased the property in question from Muniyappa on 22nd August 2007.
12. Appellant has also filed W.A No.862/2015 by representing himself as the legal representative of Muniyappa challenging the very same impugned 6 W.A. NO.875/2015 common order so far as it related to order in W.P. No.9643/2007 (Redwood Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State and others). The said writ appeal has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 13th June 2017.
13. Appellant has presented this writ appeal in his individual capacity challenging the impugned common order so far as it relates to order in W.P. No.11723/2009 [The Nilgiri Dairy (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka and others]. In the said writ petition, appellant is described as respondent No.6.
14. Thus, appellant having lost his challenge to the impugned common order by filing Writ Appeal No.862/2015 in his capacity as the legal representative of Muniyappa, has again come before this Court in his individual capacity challenging the very same common order.
7W.A. NO.875/2015
15. It is unfortunate that in W.A. No. 862/2015 appellant has described himself as the legal representative of Muniyappa and in the present appeal he is claiming independent right in the property as the purchaser of the property. He has signed Vakalathnamas in both appeals in two different capacities.
16. Appellant has annexed sale deed dated 22nd August 2007 executed in his favour by Muniyappa and others (Annexure-X), wherein he is described as son of one B. Rangaiah Shetty. Muniyappa is represented by his son Ramesh and Daughters Narasamma and Madduramma as his legal representatives in Writ Petition No.3649/2008 presented on his behalf. Therefore, appellant cannot be legal representative of Muniyappa.
17. As noticed supra, challenge made on behalf of Muniyappa has failed by the decision of this Court in W.A.No.862/2015. Appellant claims his right under Muniyappa and therefore, his right cannot be anything 8 W.A. NO.875/2015 better than Muniyappa's right. No material is placed to demonstrate that the decision in the said writ appeal No.862/2015 has been reversed or modified. Hence, no relief can be granted to the appellant since his predecessor in title has lost the legal battle.
18. Appellant has undertaken this misadventure of filing two appeals by representing himself in two distinct capacities by falsely representing himself as legal representative of Muniyappa in W.A.No.862/2015 and filing this appeal in his individual capacity as the purchaser. Both appeals have been presented by a common Advocate. After dismissal of Writ Appeal No.862/2015 on 13th June 2017, the Advocate on record has given 'No objection' and returned the case papers of this appeal on 8th September 2017. Thereafter, this appeal is prosecuted through the present Advocate on record. We record our displeasure and deprecate such practice.
9W.A. NO.875/2015
19. Though Shri Jayakumar Patil, learned Senior Advocate assailed the finding recorded by the Hon'ble Single Judge that the sale effected by deceased Muniyappa in favour of B.Ramesh is valid, on the ground that such finding could not have been recorded in the writ petition as it shuts appellant's right to challenge it before the appropriate forum, in our view, this appeal does not merit any consideration in view of appellant's conduct of misrepresenting himself as the legal representative of Muniyappa in Writ Appeal No.862/2015 and continuing to pursue this appeal after dismissal of Writ Appeal No.862/2015.
20. Resultantly this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS