Quashed

Sri. Siddaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022WP/4451/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Land Tribunal that granted occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Relying on a previous Division Bench judgment, the Court held that an order not signed by all Tribunal members is a nullity.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is voided and remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration within six months.

Sri. Siddaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4451 OF 2019(LR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. SIDDAIAH S/O. KARIYAIAH, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED), OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KALASTAWADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 570 001. SINCE DEAD BY LR’S

¶7

1(A)MRS. JAYAMMA

¶8

W/O. LATE SRI. SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT KASABA HOBLI AND NAGANAHALLI POST, KALASASTHAVADI, SIDDALINGAPURA POST, MYSORE-570 003.

¶9

1(B)SRI. SIDDARAJU S.

¶10

S/O. LATE SRI. SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT 116 KALASTHAVADI GRAMA, SIDDALINGAPURA POST, KASABA HOBALI, KALASTHAVADI, SIDDALINGAPURA POST, MYSORE-570 003.

¶11

¶12

1(C)SRI. NINGARAJU. S. S/O LATE SRI. SIDDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KALASTHAVADI SIDDALINGAPURA POST, MYSORE-570003

¶13

1(D)SMT. MANGALA GOWRI D/O. LATE SRI. SIDDAIAH, W/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT 12, 3^RD CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, PADUVARAHALLI, MYSORE-570 012.

¶14

SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O. LATE SRI. SIDDAIAH, W/O. SHIVANNA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶15

1(E)SRI. ARPITH KUMAR, S/O. LATE SMT. SHANTHAMMA, S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT 33, KASABA HOBALI AND NAGANAHALLI POST, KALASTHAVADI, MYSORE-570 003.

¶16

1(F)SMT. GAYATHRI. S. D/O. LATE. SRI. SIDDAIAH, W/O. JAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT MANDYA TQ, KOTHATHI HOBLI, SUNDAHALLI, YELIYUR, MANDYA-571 402.

¶17

1(G)ANANDA S.

¶18

S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT GOUTHAM NUSARI, B.M. ROAD, KALASATHAVADI, MYSORE TALUK, SIDDAINGAPURA POST,

¶19

¶20

KALATHAVADI, SIDDALINGAPURA, MYSORE-570 003.

¶21

… PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI.VINAY N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.MANMOHAN P N, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUIDLING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶25

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MYSORE, REP BY ITS CHIRMAN, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIST, MYSORE 570 001.

¶26

JAGGULAL DHARMASHALA, ASHOKA ROAD, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE, REP BY ITS MANAGER, JAGGULAL CHOULTRY, MYSORE 570 001.

¶27

SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA UPADHYAYA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶28

4(A) SMT. ANUSUYA, W/O. LAKSHMINARYANA UPADHYAYA, AGE 64 YEARS,

¶29

4(B) SMT. GOURI RAMANATH, W/O K. S. RAMANATH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶30

4(C) SMT. GAYATHRI VISHWANATH, W/O B.S.VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶31

¶32

4(D) SMT. BHARGAVI S BABU W/O. S. BABU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶33

4(E) SMT. URMILA SHIVARAM BHAT W/O. SUBRAMANYA BHAT AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶34

4(F) SMT. INDUKALA SHIVARAM W/O. SHIVARAM UPADHYAYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶35

4(G) SRI. MADHUKAR T SHIVARAM S/O. LATE TLS UPADHYAYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶36

RESPONDENTS NO.4(A) TO 4(G) ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SMT. GAYATHRI VISHWANATH, R/AT NO. 78/A, GOVINDAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560 004.

¶37

… RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. V SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;

¶39

SMT.SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4(C); R4(A), R4(B) & R4(F) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R4(G) IS H/S, V.C.O DATED 18/10/2022)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 22.03.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-J AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD 06.12.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-H.

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

ORDER

¶44

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the impugned order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy u/s.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 needs to be voided since it does not bear the signature of all the members of the Tribunal. This factual aspect is not denied either by learned HCGP appearing for the Tribunal or the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

¶45

A Division Bench of this Court in VIJAYA BANK vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ILR 2008 KAR 1481 having interpreted Rule 17(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 has held that it is incumbent upon all the members of the Tribunal to subscribe their hands to the order and unless this is done the order is a nullity. Paragraph 4 of the judgment reads as under:

¶46

¶47

“4. After carefully going through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in review and the provisions of Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules 1974, we are of the opinion that the failure of the members to sign the order is not merely a technical lapse but it goes to the very root of the matter. The judicial discipline requires that in a multi member judicial/quasi judicial adjudicatory body, all the adjudicators who have heard the matter should pronounce their written opinion at the same time and place and all of them should sign the order. The said salutory object of law is effectively manifested in Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. It is evident that five members have heard the matter. Only three members have signed the order and two of them have not signed the order. The Chairman and one of the members who have signed the order have expressed note of dissent for grant of occupancy rights in favour of 4th respondent. Only one of the members who have signed the order has opined that occupancy rights to be granted in favour of 4 respondent. On totality of the consideration of facts and the material, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal which is not signed by the all the members who have heard the matter is a nullity and the said order cannot be considered as a valid juridical adjudication.”

¶48

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is voided; matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for consideration afresh in accordance with law and within an outer limit of six months. It is open to the

¶49

¶50

Tribunal to consider whether the signatory evidence sought to be adduced by the petitioner can be admitted to evidence or not. All contentions in this regard are kept open.

¶51

Costs made easy.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Snb/

Sri. Siddaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Siddaiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Aswathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkateshappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Ramakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Eshwarappa G Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri N Nagaraju Vs the Regional Joint Director