Writ petition filed under Article 227 to quash Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing restoration of an appeal rejected for non-prosecution. Court dismissed writ holding Form-7A application flawed as father had filed Form-7 and noting enormous delay.
Writ petition dismissed with costs to adhere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.52386 OF 2017(LR)
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MADAPPANAHALLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
RESPONDENT NOS.2(A), 3(B),3B(I), 3B(II) & 3(C) ARE R/AT KUGUR VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 106.
3
RESPONDENTS NO.3(D), 3(D)(I) TO 3(D)(V) ARE R/AT NO.748, 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU 560 072.
4
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AT ANNX-G IN MISC NO.14/2016 AND RESTORE APPEAL NO.82/2006 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (KAT) AT ANNX-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are calling in question the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 15.09.2017 which dismissed their Misc. No.14/2016 and thereby refused to restore their Appeal No.82/2006 that was arguably dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 02.03.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that ordinarily the requests for the restoration of the dismissed appeal on the ground of non-prosecution, are favoured as a matter of course and this having not been done and there being no justification whatsoever therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of writ court.
5
are represented by the learned HCGP and the private respondents are represented by the learned Sr.Advocate. They both resisted the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order pointing out that the very appeal before the K.A.T. was not maintainable since the application in Form-A itself was not maintainable. In support of this they have produced a copy of the Land Tribunal’s order-sheet which reflects that petitioners father Mr.Ramaiah had filed application in Form-7 on 22.02.1976 claiming occupancy inter alia in respect of the petition land. So contending they seek dismissal of the writ petition.
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(i) Under the Scheme of Sec.77A of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961, the pre-condition for filing
6
application in Form-7A seeking grant of tenanted land is that the claimant ought not to have made application in Form-7 u/s.48A of the Act seeking occupancy in respect of
the said land. Since Mr. Ramaiah, the father of the petitioners had filed the application in Form-7 inter alia in respect of the subject land on 22.02.1976, the question of his children filing application in Form-7A u/s 77A would not even remotely arise. Thus the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 05.10.2004 cannot be faltered at all, which aspect the KAT could have mentioned in the impugned order is besides the point.
(ii) True it is, that the Petitioners had filed Appeal
No.82/2006 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal against rejection of their father Ramaiah’s application in Form-7A. The KAT had orally directed the Petitioners on 31.01.2008 to produce copies of Record of Rights for a particular period to ascertain whether they were continuing as tenants in respect of subject land as on 01.03.174 and thereafter till
7
02.11.1998 i.e., when the provisions of Section 77A came
into force.. Despite grant of adjournments this direction was not complied with and therefore the appeal came to be rejected on 02.03.2009. Petitioners moved Misc.No.14/2016 seeking restoration of the dismissed appeal and that also came to be rejected on 15.09.2017.
(iii) Ordinarily as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, said Misc. petitions of the kind are as a matter of course allowed, is true. However, one striking feature as to why this norm cannot be invoked is that the appeal was rejected on 02.03.2009 and the Misc. was filed on 29.01.2016, thus brooking enormous delay. Therefore, K.A.T. has made it a ground for negativing it. The delay abhors justice, said the sages of law. Even if Misc. were to be allowed and appeal restored, no favour could have been done to the Petitioners when they had no legal right to make the original application in Form-7A itself, their father having made application in Form-7, years ago
8
and got it rejected in respect of the subject land. This court hastens to add that the claim for occupancy in respect of a part of the land has been accorded by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 14.11.1979, is also notable. Thus, it is not that any injustice is meted out to the petitioners by a wholesale rejection of their father’s claim for occupancy.
(iv) What the writ court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 should see is whether the litigant had a fair deal at the hands of quasi-judicial body like the Assistant Commissioner functioning u/s.77A of 1961 Act and the Appellate Authority which comprises of a Senior IAS Officer & a District Judge of Selection Grade. Therefore, a deeper examination of the matter cannot be undertaken when orders are made in the discretionary power and they have brought about a just result in the case.
9
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being
devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it
is, costs having been made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
Snb/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should quash the Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing the petition for restoration of a dismissed appeal on grounds of non-prosecution.
Whether a petitioner has legal right to file an application in Form-7A under Section 77A when their father had already filed an application in Form-7 regarding the same land.
Whether the writ court can interfere in orders made under discretionary powers if the quasi-judicial body has brought about a just result.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravi S/O LATE RAMAIAH
SRI. MADHURESH
SRI. NAGARAJ
SRI. SHIVAPPA
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT OFFICER
Krishna S.Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
