Allowed

Manikappa S/O Ramanna Gada v. the Prl.Secretary and Ors.

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2017WA/200556/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal filed to set aside Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition regarding land records. Court held the writ petition should have been heard in the appellant's presence as a necessary party. Impugned order set aside and petition restored to file with direction to implead appellant. No opinion expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 07.04.2016 passed in W.P.201325/2016 set aside and petitioner restored to file with direction to implead appellant as respondent.

Manikappa S/O Ramanna Gada Vs the Prl.Secretary… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶6

W.A. No.200556/2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANIKAPPA S/O RAMANNA GADA AGE ABOUT 90 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585 330.

¶9

.... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SURVEY DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS IN KARNATAKA, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BIDAR – 585 401.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BASAVAKALYAN – 585 327, DIST: BIDAR.

¶16

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585 330.

¶18

INAYAT KHAN S/O GULAB KHAN PATHAN, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIV NAGAR COLONY, SOHAIL MANZIL, HUMNABAD – 585 330.

¶19

.... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADV. FOR R-6)

¶21

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.4.2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.201325/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY A.S.BOPANNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 07.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.201375/2016.

¶25

The order assailed no doubt is an innocuous

¶26

order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the official respondents to give effect to their order

¶27

¶28

dated 21(24).07.2015. The said order is a

¶29

communication from the Commissioner of Land Records to the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, with regard to the manner in which the extent of the properties is to be indicated relating to Sy.Nos.465 and 470. Respondent No.6 herein who was the writ petitioner claims right in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.470.

¶30

In a normal circumstance, the consideration as made in the writ petition would have been justified. In the instant case, when it is noticed that in the said order, there is reference to the extent of the property in Sy.No.465 to which the appellant herein has interest and in that light, when consideration of preparation of the tippani and indication of the extent in the revenue records was being considered, even if the order dated 21(24).07.2015 had not been assailed by the appellant herein before any Forum if he had any grievance with regard to the same, in the writ petition he should have been arrayed as a respondent as he was a necessary

¶31

¶32

party, since the direction to comply with the order was to be considered in the presence of the appellant herein. If any direction to implement the order is issued in the absence of say of the appellant herein, it would certainly effect the interest of the appellant, if he was to assail the said order or seek for such legal remedies in accordance with law.

¶33

Therefore, in the instant case, though we are not required to consider the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 21(24).07.2015 or in relation to any other earlier proceedings inter se between the appellant and respondent No.6 herein, the prayer as made in the writ petition in any event was required to be considered in the presence of the appellant as already indicated above.

¶34

In that view, to enable such consideration, the order dated 07.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.201325/2016 is set aside. The writ petition is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge with a direction to respondent No.6

¶35

¶36

herein to implead the appellant herein as respondent No.6 to the said writ petition whereupon the appellant shall be notified and the petition be considered in his presence. It is however made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the rival contentions between the parties.

¶37

In terms of the above, the appeal stands disposed

of.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

hrp Ct:RRJ

Manikappa S/O Ramanna Gada v. the Prl.Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikappa S/O Ramanna Gada v. the Prl.Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Anjuman-E-Islam Sindgi Vs the State Karnataka Department and Ors.

The State Election Commission Vs Smt.Hemavati W/O Chandrakanta and Ors.

Mohammed Sultan S/O Mohammed Jaffar Ali Chitgupors Vs the State through

Arifa Parveen W/O Late Md.Muzammil Ahmed Vs Shri Jaganth Reddy

The Registar Vs the Registar

Smt Neelamma W/O Late Virupakshayya Mathapati Vs the State of Karnataka Ors.