Allowed

Sri.Chandrashekar S/O Tammanna @Tammappa Halakatti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2021WP/138172/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court warranted interference in writ petition challenging Karnataka Wakf Tribunal order rejecting memo for impounding insufficiently stamped document and refusing adjournment for cross-examination. Court quashed order and remitted matter for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.01.2020 passed by Karnataka Wakf Tribunal set aside; matter remitted back to Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

Sri.Chandrashekar S/O Tammanna @Tammappa Halakatti Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE^6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE^S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

W.P. NO. 138172/2020 (GM-WAKF)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O TAMMANNA@TAMMAPPA HALAKAITI, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED KSRTC EMPLOYEE, R/O: GUDI ONI, GULAGANJIKOPPA, DHARWAD-08, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

SRI.ASHOK BASAVANNEPPA HALAKAITI AGE:⁵¹ YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDI ONI, GULAGANJIKOPPA, DHARWAD-08, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶10

SMT.PARVATEWWA@^INDRADEVI, W/O INDRANATH DAMBAL, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS, R/O: KUMARESWAR NAGAR, KAMAKSHI^COLONY, DHARWAD, DIST•. DHARWAD.

¶11

SMT.NIRMALAW/O^NINGANGOUDA PATIL AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MUDDINAKAPPA VILLAGE, POST: ANDALAGI, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.

¶12

SHRI.ASHOK S/O MAHABALESHWAR BIKKANNAVAR AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BIKKANNAVAR GALLI, SAUNDATI'I, TQ:^{SOUNDATTI,DIST:} BELAGAVI.

¶13

SMT.PARVATHIW/O FAKKIRESH^AKKI AGE:⁵⁹ YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE, SHIRAHÆITI, TQ: SHIRAHAff1, DIST: GADAG.

¶14

¶15

7.	SMT.SUNANDAW/O ^RAVINDRAHONDAPPAGOL AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ROTSON APARTMENT ^"A"BLOCK, NO. ^102, TRAINING COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD.
8.	SHRI.SIDDALINGS/O CHANDRASHEKHAR HALAKA'ITI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATEBUSINESS, R/O•. GUDI ONI, GULAGANGI KOPPA, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.
9.	SHRI.SHAMBULING, S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR HALAKMTI AGE: 36YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE BUSINESS, R/O: GUDI ONI, GULAGANGI KOPPA, DHARWAD, ^AT:DHARWAD, TQ: ^{DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.}
10.	SMT.ANNAPURNA, W/O VISHWANATH CHINIWALAR AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PROFESSOR COLONY, MRUTUNJAYNAGAR, BAILHONGAL, AT: BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. PETITIONERS
(BY ^SR	^I.SIVARAJ ^P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.	THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF ^WAKF, HAJ ^{AND MINORITY WELFARE,} VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 ^001.
2.	KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 ^052.
3.	ANJUMAN ^{ISLAM DHARWAD} NEAR ^{OLD BUS STAND, DHARWAD,} REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY580 001.

¶16

¶17

THE ANJUMAN^{ISLAMSANGH,DHARWAD} NEAR^{OLDBUSSTAND,DHARAWD,} REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, 580 001.

¶18

ANJUMAN-E-ISLAM DHARWAD NEAR^{OLDBUSSTAND DHARWAD,} REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, 580 001.

¶19

THE^{DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER} DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶20

THE^{TAHSILDAR,DHARWAD,} TQ:^DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY^SRI.V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP, FOR RQ, R6 & R7; SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR^R3 &^R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION^IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF^CONSTITUTION OF^INDIAPRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED^23.01.2020 IN PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA WAKF^TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DIVISION,BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-A &^ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi Division, Belagavi, whereby the Tribunal rejected the memo filed by the petitioners for impounding Ex.D.13 produced on^{behalfofthedefendants} and also

¶26

¶27

rejecting the request of the petitioners to adjourn the matter for cross examination of DW2 by taking the same as nil.

¶28

Heard learned counsel^for the^petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶29

The material on record indicates^that in^the aforesaid suit filed by^{thepetitioners} and^{others-plaintiffs againstthe} respondents-defendants for declaration and other reliefsⁱⁿ respect of the suit schedule immovable properties, the respondents-defendants contested the suit. After completion of evidence of^the plaintiffs, the respondentsdefendants adduced both oral and documentary evidence including examining a witness as DW2 through whom document dated 21.06.2019 was marked as^Ex.D.13and the matter was posted for further evidence of DW2 on 23.01.2020. On that day, petitioners filed a memo contending that the said document at Ex.D.13 was insufficiently stamped and that the same requires to be

¶30

¶31

impounded by^the Tribunal. Though^the defendants^did not file any objections to the^said memo,^the Tribunal proceeded to pass^the impugned order^{rejectingthesaid} memo filed by the petitioners on the ground that the said document was merely an agreement to relinquish^rights over immovable property. Thereafter, petitioners sought for time to cross examine DW2 which was^alsorejected by^the Tribunal, by the impugned order, aggrieved by which the petitioners are before^this Court by way of^the present^petition.

¶32

A perusal of^the material on record^{willindicatethat} the impugned order passed by^the Tribunal rejecting the memo^{filedbythepetitionersisclearly} an^unreasoned, non speaking, laconic and cryptic order without any application of mind and without assigning cogent or valid reasons and without reference to the provisions of^the Karnataka Stamp Act in^relation to^the stamp duty and penalty payable in respect of the aforesaid document at Ex.D.13 dated 18.05.1991 produced by the defendants. It^is also relevant

¶33

¶34

to state that the Tribunal has come to the erroneous conclusion that since the said document has already been marked as^Ex.D.13by over-ruling the objections of the petitioners, the question of impounding the said document does^not arise which^is clearly contrary to the^decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels vs. P. Gunavathy (ILR 2013 KAR 368) wherein this Court has clearly stated^that the moment a document is produced before the Court/ Tribunal, it^is the duty of such Court/ Tribunal to examine^{thesufficiency} or otherwise of the stamp duty and penalty payable on^the said document irrespective of whether the opposite party raises objections or seeks impounding of^the same. The impugned^orderalso discloses^{thatabsolutely} no reasons are^{assignedbytheTribunal} to come to^{theconclusionthat} the said document at Ex.D.13 cannot be impounded without even referring^to the contents of the document qua the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act. So also, having rejected the memo filed by the petitioners by

¶35

¶36

the impugned^order, the Tribunal^also committed an error in refusing to grant time to the petitioners to cross examine DW2^without appreciating that the matter was^posted for his cross-examination for the first time on that day.

¶37

Under^{thesecircumstances,} I am of^the considered opinion^thatthe impugned order passed by^the trial Court rejecting the memo^filed by the petitioners and refusing to adjourn the matter for cross-examination of DW2 by the petitioners is clearly illegal, arbitrary and perverse resulting in miscarriage of justice and warranting interference by this Court^inthe present^{writpetition.}

¶38

In the^result,I pass^thefollowing order.

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed; ii) Impugned order dated 23.01.2020 passed by^the Karnataka Wakf^{Tribunal,isherebysetaside;}

¶41

iii) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afreshⁱⁿ accordance with law and

¶42

Sd/-

Sri.Chandrashekar S/O Tammanna @Tammappa Halakatti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Chandrashekar S/O Tammanna @Tammappa Halakatti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekappa S/O Mallappa Govindanavar, Vs the Managing Director, Hescom, Hubli.

Hanamanta S/O.Yallappa Arakeri Vs the General Manager

Sri.Shivayya S/O. Mallayya Koppad Vs Parvatavva W/O. Channaveeragouda Patil

Smt.K. Yamunarao W/O Late Shri.K. Sarvottamrao Vs Shri. K. Ananthakrishnarao

Balappa S/O.Shivappa Kaleri Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Savita W/O Srinivas Raichur Vs Sri. Gurushiddappa Gangappa Akki