Karnataka High Court
Prakash K Srivastava vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.27450-51/2012 (LR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. PRAKASH K.SRIVASTAVA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O KISHAN SRIVASTAVA
R/AT NO.6, GIRLS SCHOOL STREET
SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE 560 020
2. SANJAY K SRIVASTAVA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O KISHAN SRIVASTAVA
RESIDING AT NO.6
GIRLS SCHOOL STREET
SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE 560 020. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.H.SRINIVASA RAO, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKASASOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH-SUB DIVISION,
NOW BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
PODIUM BLOCK,
VV TOWER,
BANGALORE.
3. SRI KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2
S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
RESIDING AT 2ND MAIN,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE 84. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHASHIDHAR S.KARMADI, HCGP FOR R1 & 2
SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADV. FOR R3)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the entire proceedings
in R.P.No.1/2007 vide Annexure-J and etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing-B group
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. The grievance in this writ petition arises in a limited compass, in as much as, petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings instituted in Review Petition No.1/2007 and Appeal No.1145/2007 filed by respondent No.3.
2. The main contention of the petitioner is that without having any locus standi either to file the review petition or the appeal, respondent No.3 has ventured to institute those proceedings before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, making a grievance against the order passed under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the petitioner herein had not contravened the provisions of Sections 3 79-A & 79-B of the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the initiation of such proceedings before the Tribunal are the result of abuse of the process of law and aimed at harassing the petitioner.
3. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that these petitions are pending since 2007 and the petitioner is made to undergo the ordeal of facing these proceedings which arse absolutely untenable in law and which are instituted without respondent No.3 having any locus standi. Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment in the case of KARIYAPPA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 1990 KAR 1269, to contend that this Court will certainly intervene and issue necessary direction in exercise of the powers under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, when a statutory authority fails to exercise jurisdiction or unnecessarily postpones the matter under consideration. He also draws the attention of the Court to the observations made by this Court in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgment, in support of his request that atleast this Court may issue a direction to the Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of these two matters.
4
4. There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in his request for expeditious disposal of the two matters.
5. At this stage, this Court does not wish to express any opinion regarding the alleged abuse of the process of law by the respondent. The Tribunal has to examine the said question and as to the maintainability of the proceedings in review petition and the appeal filed before the Tribunal. Suffice to observe that the matter requires expeditious consideration having regard to the history it has. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the two matters within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK