High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging FDP orders, holding that recalling the accepted feasibility report is not feasible. The Court reaffirmed an interim order staying delivery of possession of a specific land item pending appeal.
Writ petition disposed; parties granted liberty to file appeal; interim order continued until appeal filed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.16014 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
2
1. SHARADHAMMA W/O LATE BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 2. JAYARAM S/O BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. SRINIVASA S/O BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
3
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 – R-6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.06.2015, 5.11.2015 AND 08.03.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN) SORABA IN F.D.P NO.4 OF 2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-L,M & N ARE CONCERNED & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Petitioners herein are respondents No.1(b), (c), (e) to (j) in FDP No. 4/2011 arising out of OS No. 382 of 1989. Petitioners are defendants in the Original suit are invoking the writ jurisdiction assailing the orders dated 20.06.2015, 05.11.2015 and 02.01.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Soraba in FDP No.4/2011, vide Annexures-L, M and N, respectively.
5
report filed by the Court Commissioner. The feasibility report filed by the Court Commissioner came to be accepted and possession warrant to Bailiff was issued by the trial Court to execute with the assistance of the Taluka Surveyor to hand over the possession of the petition schedule properties to the parties.
6
preparing the feasibility report by appointing the Court Commissioner. However, the fact remains that pursuant to the objections being taken as not filed the trial Court ordered for submitting the feasibility report by appointing the Court Commissioner. Thereafter, the feasibility report is submitted by the Court Commissioner and the same is taken on record.
7
file objections to the feasibility report submitted by the Court Commissioner.
counsel for petitioners that aggrieved by any order passed on the feasibility report is not as if a final decree
8
having been come into place. Though there is no final decree. Once the feasibility report is submitted by the Court Commissioner and is accepted by the trial Court, there is conclusion of the FDP proceedings and the writ petition against the said order would not be maintainable and petitioners herein would have to file an appeal challenging the acceptance of feasibility report and any order passed in FDP proceedings by the trial Court would become functus officio.
9
ORDER
10
computing the limitation on filing of the appeal.
(7) It is also made clear that on filing of the appeal by the petitioners before the appropriate forum, the said forum shall consider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same;
(8) If any application for interim relief is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and to pass suitable orders on continuation or non-continuation of the interim order passed by this Court without being influenced by any opinion or observation of this Court;
11
Sd/- JUDGE
VK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ petition challenging acceptance of feasibility report is maintainable.
HUCHARAYAPPA
SURESH
SHARADHAMMA
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
