Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.V.Anjaneya Reddy Since Dead By ... vs Sri.B.K.Chengala Rao on 12 June, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT APPEAL NO.3946 OF 2009 (KLRA)
BETWEEN:
SRI K.V.ANJANEYA REDDY,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
1. SRI.PRANAVASWAROOPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2. SRI.PANCHAKCHARI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
3. SRI.KALATHETHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
4. SRI.JYOTHISWAROOPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
5. SRI.THEJASWAROOPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
6. SMT.KEMPAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2
7. SMT.PRAFULLA KUMARI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
8. SMT.SUNITHA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
9. SMT.YOGANANDINI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
10. SMT.SUKANYA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
11. SMT.NANDINI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
12. SMT.SAKAMMA
W/O.LATE ANJANEYA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
13. SMT.MUNITHAYAMMA
W/O.LATE ANJANEYA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
THE APPELLANTS 1 TO 11 ARE
CHILDREN OF LATE
SRI.K.V.ANJANEYA REDDY
APPELLANTS 1 TO 13 ARE
RESIDENTS OF KOTHANUR
VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT,
NOW CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G.B.MANJUNATHA, ADV.)
3
AND:
1. SRI.B.K.CHENGALA RAO
S/O.LATE C.KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BACHAHALLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
NOW CHIKKABALLAPURA
DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
SIDLAGHATTA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN
4. SMT.NANJAMMA
W/O.LATE SRI.K.V.ANJANEYA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O.KOTHANUR VILLAGE
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT
NOW CHIKKABALLAPURA
DISTRICT.
5. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRA RAO
S/O.LATE B.VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.311
SREE ESHWARA TEMPLE STREET,
SUBBARAYANA PETE AT AND POST,
4
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
KOLAR DISTRICT
NOW CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
6. SRI.B.V.SATHYANARAYANA RAO,
S/O.LATE B.VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT NO.386, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
SIDDARTH LAYOUT,
MYSORE-577 011
7. SRI.B.RANGANATHA RAO
S/O.LATE B.VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/AT PATEL STREET,
AT AND POST: SIDLAGHATTA
KOLAR DISTRICT
NOW CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST.
8. SRI.B.S.SHANKARA NARAYANA RAO
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR
SMT.YESHODAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.55, I.T.I COLONY,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 050.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.KESHAVA REDDY, AGA FOR R2 & R3,
SRI G.S.VISWESHWARA, ADV. FOR R1
SRI THIRTHAPPA, ADV. FOR R4
SRI B.S.MURALI, ADV. FOR R5, 6 & 8)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
5
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.41196/2001
(KLRA) DATED 14/09/2009.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, MANJUNATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 14.9.2009 in W P No.41196/2001 is called in question in this appeal.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are as herein under:
The writ petition was filed by one Sri Changal Rao challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Sidlaghatta dated 31.10.1981 in Case No.LRM.371/74-75, 369/74-75 & 370/74-75. One Sri Changal Rao, Sri Anjaneya Reddy and Smt.Nanjamma filed Form No.7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act claiming different extents of land in the land situated in Bachahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta 6 Taluk, Kolar District and Devara Malluru village. All the applications were clubbed together. The order was passed on 31.10.1981 allowing application filed by Sri B K Changalrao in respect of certain extents of land in Bachahalli and Devara Mallur village and rejecting the claim made by him in respect of Sy.No.19E and also rejecting the application filed by Smt.Nanjamma and considering the case of Sri Anjaneya Reddy of Kottanur in respect of 10 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.19E. This order was questioned by the writ petitioner in W P No.28748/1981, which was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, Sri Anjaneya Reddy filed W A No.219/82. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, on account of amendment to Karnataka Land Reforms Act, appellate authority was constituted. Accordingly, by the order dated 19.8.1996 the matter was referred to the Appellate Authority for fresh 7 consideration in accordance with law, by directing the parties to appear before the authority on 5.12.1986. After the order referring the matter to the Appellate Authority, the appellate authority came to be abolished, thereby again the matter was retransferred to this Court and the same has been treated as writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge after considering the case of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the order is not a speaking order and opportunity has not been given to all the parties before passing the impugned order. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.
5. This order of remand is called in question in this appeal.
8
6. Annexure-V is the order sheet of the Tribunal dated 31.10.1981. By perusal of Annexure-V, the order sheet dated 31.10.1981 and final order dated 31.10.1981, we have noticed that Smt.Nanjamma was examined on 31.10.1981 and without giving opportunity to cross- examine her the order is passed on the same day and on perusal of the order sheet and the impugned order, it is clear, two separate orders are passed by the Tribunal which is unknown to law. In the order sheet also, while considering the case of the parties, the Tribunal has passed a detailed order which runs into two pages and in the impugned order the same matter has been elaborately dealt and separate order is passed, which runs into 8 pages. This shows, how the Tribunal has passed two different orders on the application by all the rival claimants.
7. We have also seen Annexure-P & Q. Annexure-P is the deposition of Sri K V Anjaneya Reddy. Annexure-Q is the deposition of Sri Seetharama Rao, the son of Sri 9 Changal Rao. Both these depositions were recorded on 31.10.1981 only. As a matter of fact on 31.10.1981 since the writ petitioner Sri Changal Rao was unwell, his son Sri Seetharama Rao sought for an adjournment but the Tribunal instead of adjourning the matter, has proceeded to record evidence of son of Sri Changal Rao and in compelling circumstances, Sri Seetharama Rao has deposed, which cannot be treated as evidence recorded by following the principles of natural justice and Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules.
8. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the Tribunal has committed a serious error in disposing of the matter on 31.10.1981 without giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner Sri Changal Rao. Under these circumstances, if the learned Single Judge has set aside the order and remanded the matter to reconsider the matter by giving opportunity to all the parties, this court cannot interfere with such an order.
10
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE AKD