The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ appeal against the Single Judge's order in a land title dispute. The Court held that a remand was specific to rival claims between two persons, not an open remand, thus no notice was needed for parties who had not challenged the original occupancy order.
Writ appeal not entertained and dismissed.
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.
WA No. 1367 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT APPEAL NO. 1367 OF 2016 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI PRATHAPACHANDRA SHETTY S/O SRI VODIPU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PADUPERAR VILLAGE POST PADUPERAR MANGALORE TALUK. ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)
AND:
R1(a) TO R1(c) ARE R/AT KANTHANAGAR POST PADUPERAR, VIA BAJPE MANGALURU TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 142.
WA No. 1367 of 2016
R-4 & R-5 ARE RESIDING AT
WA No. 1367 of 2016
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY R-1 & R-3 ARE DECEASED V/O DATED 13.06.2019 NOTICE TO R-4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R-4, R-5, R-1(A), R-1(B), R-1(C), R-2(A), R-3(A) ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 33509/2009 DATED 04.04.2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner challenging the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.33509/2009.
WA No. 1367 of 2016
Ratnavathi Hegde. The said Ratnavathi Hegde allegedly bequeathed the aforesaid land bearing Sy. No.89/2A3 in favour of the appellant herein under a registered Will dated 31.10.1988. Ratnavathi Hegde is said to have died on 08.09.2005. One Subraya Achari - father of respondent nos.1 to 3 herein had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights of the land in question along with another item of land bearing Sy. No.89/2A2 measuring 34 cents. The Land Tribunal, by order dated 10.08.1981 had granted occupancy rights of the land in question in favour of Subraya Achari. The said order was challenged by one Sri Babu Achari who is the husband of respondent no.4 and father of respondent no.5 before this Court in W.P.No.29189/1995. The said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration of the rival claim in respect of the land in question. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal has passed the order dated 24.02.2007 once again granting occupancy rights of the land in question in favour of Subraya Achari and rejected the claim of Babu Achari. The said order was questioned by the appellant in W.P.No.33509/2009, which was dismissed by the
WA No. 1367 of 2016
learned Single Judge of this Court by the order impugned and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
WA No. 1367 of 2016
note here that as on the said date, Ratnavathi Hegde had no title over the land in question as the Land Tribunal had already granted occupancy rights in respect of the land in question in favour of Subraya Achari. The order dated 10.08.1981 was challenged by the rival claimant Babu Achari in the year 1995 by filing W.P.No.29189/1995. It is relevant to note that in the said writ petition, the landlords of the property i.e., the predecessors in title of the appellant were not made as parties. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court and remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to consider the rival claim of the parties, and therefore, it is clear that it was not a open remand as sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the remand was only to consider the rival claim between Subaraya Achari and Babu Achari in respect of the land in question.
WA No. 1367 of 2016
to him in the first round of litigation by the Land Tribunal will not arise. After the matter was remanded by the Land Tribunal, since the remand was restricted to consider the rival claim of Subaraya Achari and Babu Achari, there was no requirement of issuing any notice to the appellant or his predecessor-in-title, more so, when they had not challenged the order dated 10.08.1981, by which the occupancy rights of the land in question was granted in favour of Subaraya Achari.
SD/JUDGE
SD/JUDGE
KK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Land Tribunal erred in granting occupancy rights without hearing the appellant's predecessors in title after a remand.
Whether an open remand required calling the appellant's predecessors who had not challenged the earlier order of the Land Tribunal.
Prathapachandra Shetty
Sandeep Achary
Prasad Achary
Leela
Smt. Kumari Achary
Smt. Rajeevi Achary
Alok Aradhe
S Vishwajith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
