Karnataka High Court
Smt. Basamma W/O Bheemraya Jeer Jer ... vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 23 October, 2013
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
W.P.No.103184 /2013 (LR)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Basamma W/o Bheemraya Jeer (Hugar)
Aged about 62 years, Occ: House hold and Agri.
R/o Chigaralli Camp, Opp: Committee Hall,
Tq. Jewargi, District Gulbarga - 585 101.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. I.R. BIRADAR & G G CHAGASHETTY, ADVS.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its secretary, Revenue Dept.
M.S. Building, Bangalore - 01.
2. The Land Tribunal
Basavana Bagewadi,
Dist: Bijapur - 586 101,
Represented by its secretary.
3. Sri. Siddappa
S/o Basavantappa Jeer,
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Unnebhavi, Tq. Basvana Bagewadi,
Dist: Bijapur - 586 101.
4. Shivanand S/o Gurappa Ninganur,
Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Rolli, Tq. Bilagi, Dist: Bagalkot-587 101.
2
5. Smt. Gouravva, W/o Shivanand Ninganur,
Aged about 50 years, Occ: House hold,
R/o Rolli, Tq. Bilagi, Dist: Bagalkot - 587 101.
6. The Tahasildar
Basavana Bagewadi,
Dist: Bijapur - 586 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : SHIVAKUMAR R TENGLI, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.11.1987 PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN NO. TNCSR-1134, 298, 297 BASVANA
BAGEWADI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL.
HEARING ON THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner alleges that respondents played a fraud upon the Land Tribunal by not disclosing the fact that petitioner was the owner of the land, subject matter of alleged tenancy claim under The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and therefore, the order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights over respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in respect of agricultural land in question is a nullity.
3
2. In United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Rajendra Singh and others1 the Apex Court has extracted observations of Apex Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath2 and Indian Bank vs Satyam Firbres (India) (P) Ltd.,3 and held thus:
"15. It is unrealistic to expect the appellant company to resist a claim at the first instance on the basis of the fraud because the appellant company had at that stage no knowledge about the fraud allegedly played by the claimants. If the Insurance Company comes to know of any dubious concoction having been made with the sinister object of extracting a claim for compensation, and if by that time the award was already passed, it would not be possible for the company to file a statutory appeal against the award. Not only because of the bar of limitation to file the appeal but the consideration of the appeal even if the delay could be condoned, would be 1 (2000) 3 SCC 581 2 (1994) 1 SCC 1 3 (1996) 5 SCC 550 4 limited to the issues formulated from the pleadings made till then.
16. Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim."
Applying the very same observations to the facts of this case, petitioner has a remedy of invoking the inherent power of the Land Tribunal to recall its own order if fraud is establish. Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm