Allowed

Sri C Chethan Kumar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/21895/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order admitting a revenue appeal and granting status quo despite an undecided 451-day delay condonation application. The High Court held such interim orders are without jurisdiction, set aside the Tribunal's order and directed it to first decide the limitation application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order dated 24.06.2024 set aside; Tribunal to decide Section 5 Limitation Act condonation application first, then the appeal and interlocutory applications.

Sri C Chethan Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36967 WP No. 21895 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.21895 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.C.CHETHAN KUMAR S/O CHANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT JUTTANAHALI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.MOHANKUMARA D, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BEERASANDRA VILLAGE

¶14

KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI - 562110

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA TALUK OFFICE DODDABALLAPURA - 561203

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36967 WP No. 21895 of 2024

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LAND SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS BANGALORE RURAL SUB-DIVISION DEVANAHALLI TALUK OFFICE DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110

¶19

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY NO.3331, 1^ST FLOOR, VJ COMPLEX NAGAGONDANAHALLI MAIN ROAD DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶20

SRI.RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE B. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST R/AT ARDESANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 562110

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI.YOGESH D NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R.5; SRI.CHOKKA REDDY, AVOCATE FOR R.6)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 24.06.2024 BY WHICH AN APPEAL IS ADMITTED IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.287/2024 PASSED BY KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36967 WP No. 21895 of 2024

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revenue Appeal No.287/2024 as per Annexure-J.

¶29

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

¶30

3. The present petition arises from an appeal filed by Respondent No.6 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, under Section 49(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.12.2022. While filing the appeal, respondent No.6 also submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a delay of 451 days in preferring the appeal.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36967 WP No. 21895 of 2024

¶32

4. The core issue in the present case is whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") could have entertained and passed orders on interlocutory applications in the appeal without first adjudicating upon the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶33

5. It is a well-settled principle of law that when an appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the Courts/Tribunals/Authorities must first address the application for condonation of delay before delving into the merits of the appeal or any interlocutory applications arising therefrom. Without the delay being condoned, the appeal is not competent, and any orders passed in the proceedings are rendered without jurisdiction.

¶34

6. In the present case, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal filed by Respondent No.6 was a belated one. However, instead of first deciding the application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal proceeded to pass an order on I.A. No.4, directing the parties to maintain status

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:36967 WP No. 21895 of 2024

¶37

quo . This action of the Tribunal was not only procedurally irregular but also legally impermissible.

¶38

7. The law on this point has been consistently upheld by various courts, including this Court. In a catena of judgments , the Courts have held that an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation cannot be considered "an appeal in the eye of law" unless the delay is condoned. Any order passed in the proceedings before the condonation of delay is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

¶39

8. In the landmark case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy¹ , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

¶40

"The primary object of fixing a time limit for filing an appeal is to bring finality to judicial proceedings. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The application for condonation of delay must be decided at the

¶41

1 (1998) 7 SCC 123

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36967 WP No. 21895 of 2024

¶43

outset, and only upon condoning the delay can the court proceed to entertain the appeal."

¶44

9. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani² , the Apex Court observed:

¶45

"If the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, it must be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The court or tribunal has no authority to entertain or pass any orders in the appeal or interlocutory applications unless it first adjudicates on the application for condonation of delay."

¶46

10. The Karnataka High Court , in RFA No.100497/2016 (Smt. Mahadevamma v. Smt.

¶47

Subbamma) , reiterated this principle, holding that:

¶48

"An appeal filed after the expiry of the limitation period cannot be treated as a valid appeal unless the delay is condoned. No interim orders, including orders of status quo or stay, can be passed in such an appeal until the delay

¶49

2 (1996)3 SCC 132

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36967 WP No. 21895 of 2024

¶51

is condoned. Entertaining any such interlocutory applications without deciding the application for condonation of delay first is tantamount to exercising jurisdiction illegally."

¶52

11. The reasoning behind these judgments is grounded in the very nature of the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. Unless the appeal is properly instituted by condoning the delay, the tribunal or authority does not acquire the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, much less pass any orders on interlocutory applications. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India³ , clarified:

¶53

“Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the case or pass interim orders arises only after the court or tribunal is seized of the matter in accordance with the law, which includes condonation of delay where necessary.”

¶54

12. In the present case, the Tribunal, without deciding I.A. No.3 (the application under Section 5 of the

¶55

3 (1988) 2 SCC 587

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36967 WP No. 21895 of 2024

¶57

Limitation Act), proceeded to grant an interim order of status quo in I.A. No.4. Such an order is patently without jurisdiction and suffers from serious legal infirmities. The Tribunal was duty-bound to first address the delay of 451 days before entertaining any interlocutory applications.

¶58

13. In light of the above discussions and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the interim order of status quo passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. It is hereby set aside. The Tribunal is directed to first adjudicate the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.3) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Only upon condonation of the delay, if at all, can the Tribunal proceed to decide the appeal and any interlocutory applications on merits.

¶59

14. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:36967 WP No. 21895 of 2024

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶64

(ii) The impugned order dated 24.06.2024 passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revenue Appeal No.287/2024 as per Annexure-J is hereby set-aside.

¶65

(iii) The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is directed to expeditiously decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, after affording both parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Only after the application for condonation of delay is decided, should the Tribunal proceed to pass appropriate orders on the appeal and any interlocutory applications, including I.A. No.4.

¶66

(iv) All contentions are kept open.

¶67

(v) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶68

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶69

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri C Chethan Kumar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Chethan Kumar v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Anitha R Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka

V S Thimmegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Indresh H N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. G. Sheela Vs the Govt of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sandesh v P Vs the State of Karnataka