Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Syed Nasir Hussain vs The Joint Director Of Land Records on 9 April, 2018

Bench: Chief Justice, B M Shyam Prasad

                         1

                                         W.A.No.6786/2017



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

                      PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

       WRIT APPEAL NO.6786 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI SYED NASIR HUSSAIN
S/O. IQBAL HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.52
HAINES ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 005.
                                        ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:
THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
CITY SURVEY (SOUTH ZONE)
BENGALURU - 560 003.
                                      ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET
                                      2

                                                            W.A.No.6786/2017



ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.11.2017 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
NO.46466/2011.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                               JUDGMENT

Though the matter is listed for consideration of the application for impleadment (IA.No.2/2018), having regard to the subject matter, with the consent and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, we have heard the matter finally at this stage itself.

Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner/appellant has filed the writ petition aforesaid, while essentially questioning the maintainability of the proceedings in suo motu Revision No.2/2011-12 as taken up by the respondent - Joint Director of Land Records and has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the impugned notice dated 1.8.2011 in No.CTS(B) Suo Moto 3 W.A.No.6786/2017 Revision/2/2011-12 by the respondent (vide Annexure-A),

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition forbidding respondent from continuing the proceedings No.CTS(B) Suo Moto Revision/2/2011-

12 dated 1.8.2011 (Vide Annexure-A), and

(iii) Issue any writ, order or direction and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice."

It appears that the reply/objections in the said writ petition has not yet been filed on behalf of the respondent. However, an application (IA. No.1/2016) was filed in the said writ petition on behalf of Shri Faraulla Khan, who is the applicant of the application for impleadment (IA.No.2/2018), as filed in this writ appeal. It is also noticed that his application for impleadment, as filed in the writ petition, was ordered to be considered along with the main petition by an order dated 15.11.2016. Thereafter, the petition was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court 4 W.A.No.6786/2017 on 29.11.2017. The learned Single Judge has observed in the order impugned that the proceedings in question were adopted by the respondent pursuant to the order dated 08.03.2011, as passed in W.P.No.30976/2010, which was a petition filed by the applicant - Shri Faraulla Khan. The learned Single Judge has referred to the rival stands of the parties as regards the property in question i.e., the petitioner on the one hand and the impleading applicant on the other. The learned Single Judge has, thereafter, referred to certain facts, which had purportedly been examined by the Committee headed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government in its Urban Development Department as also certain directions said to have been issued to the Survey Department to conduct an inquiry as regards the status of the land in question. After making such observations and references, the learned Single Judge has, ultimately, directed as under:

"The learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to secure the status report of the said inquiry from the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, having his 5 W.A.No.6786/2017 office in VIkasa Soudha. The same shall be secured and filed into this Court on the next date of hearing.

List this matter week after next within which time the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure aforesaid information and file into this Court.

A copy of this order is made available to the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate to pursue the matter with the authorities, before whom the inquiry is pending."

This appeal against the order aforesaid was taken up for consideration on 12.12.2017 and after having taken note of the submissions, this Court ordered as under:-

"Heard Sri Vijaya Shankar S., learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri V.Sreenidhi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

We asked the learned Additional Government Advocate to trace the power of the Joint Director of Land Records, City Survey (South Zone), Bengaluru to initiate suo motu revision proceeding No.2/2011- 12 (a copy of the notice dated 01.08.2011 relating to the said proceeding is produced as Annexure-A). He referred to Section 56 of the Karnataka Land 6 W.A.No.6786/2017 Revenue Act, 1964 to trace the power of the Joint Director of Land Records to initiate the aforesaid proceeding. However, he is not able to refer to the proceeding/order against which the revisional proceeding is taken up. Prima facie, in our opinion, the proceeding appears to be misconceived. It appears that this aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

The matter requires consideration. The appeal is accordingly admitted.

Interim stay of the order dated 29.11.2017 passed in WP. No.46466/2011 which is impugned in this appeal and all further proceedings pursuant thereto. IA.No.1/2017 is allowed accordingly."

After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate as also learned counsel for the applicant, we are clearly of the view that the real issues involved in the matter are required to be gone into and examined in the pending writ petition by the learned Single Judge and not in this appeal.

W.A.No.6786/2017

The grievance, as suggested on behalf of the appellant, is essentially directed against the observations occurring in the order impugned which, according to learned counsel for the appellant, shall prejudice his case in the writ petition; and it is contended that, such observations are rather extraneous and irrelevant for adjudication of the real questions involved in the matter.

Learned Additional Government Advocate has attempted to argue on the maintainability and competence of proceedings adopted in the matter. However, in our view, all such submissions are required to be made for consideration in the pending writ petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant is also not in a position to dispute that his application for impleadment still remains pending before the learned Single Judge and he is also required to make all the submissions before the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.

W.A.No.6786/2017

Learned counsel for the private contesting parties i.e., the appellant and the applicant are more or less ad idem that the observations occurring in the order impugned, as regards merits of the case and the claim of either of the parties, should not have bearing on the final adjudication of the issues involved in the matter before the learned Single Judge.

So far as procuring of any report by the Additional Government Advocate and for placing of the same before the Court is concerned, in our view, the Court dealing with the matter is always within its power to require any particular document/material to be placed before it, as deemed fit and necessary for just and effectual determination of the real questions in controversy. It goes without saying that even the report, as requisitioned by the learned Single Judge in the operative part of the order impugned (as reproduced hereinabove), shall remain subject to the submissions of the parties and adjudication by the Court.

W.A.No.6786/2017

For what has been noticed, observed and indicated hereinabove, we are of the view that interest of justice shall be served if the operative part of the order impugned (reproduced hereinabove) is not interfered with, but while making it clear that filing of any status report or any other information/material by the respondent would remain subject to the objections of the other party/parties; and the same shall be examined only at the time of final hearing of the matter.

So far as all other observations occurring in the order impugned dated 29.11.2017 are concerned, we are clearly of the view that such observations need to be put in abeyance, while making it clear that the said observations shall not have any bearing on the merit consideration of the matter either way.

This intra Court appeal is partly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above.

The parties, through their respective learned counsel, shall stand at notice to appear before the learned Single Judge on 13.06.2018.

W.A.No.6786/2017

The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

No costs.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE SA