Writ Petition No. 18796 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9276 WP No. 18796 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 18796 OF 2015 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KHADEEJAMMA W/O LATE K M MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS REP. BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K. ABDUL MUTHALIB S/O LATE K.M. MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS (PETITIONER NO.2) R/AT KANDIGEMOOLE HOUSE IVARNADU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239. 2. K. ABDUL MUTALIB S/O LATE K.M. MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KANDIGEMOOLE HOUSE IVARNADU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239 (BY SRI. K. SHRIHARI., ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS 1. LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239. 2. CHIDANAND, S/O PUTTANNA GOWDA
Legal Reasoning
MAJOR REP. BY P.A. HOLDER MR. PADMANABHA, S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA AGED MAJOR R/AT KANDIGEMOOLE HOUSE SONANGERI POST - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9276 WP No. 18796 of 2015 IVARNADU VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK, D.K. - 574 239. 3. SHEELAVATHI RTD. TEACHER D/O LATE PUTTANNA GOWDA W/O CHINNAPPA GOWDA, AGED MAJOR MANI NILAYA, AMBETADKA SULLIA, SULLIA TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239 4. SHEETHAMMA W/O PUTTANNA GOWDA, AGED MAJOR KOLAMBE HOUSE, CHOKKADY POST SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239 (BY SMT. VAHEEDA., AGA FOR R-1; SMT. M.P.GEETHA DEVI., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. H.V. MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. RAMESHA.H.E., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL SULLIA TALUK, D.K. R-1 DATED 30.1.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The tenants are before this Court questioning the order by which the Land Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the tenants. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9276 WP No. 18796 of 2015 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the impugned order passed was not consented by all the Members as required under the Rules and therefore, the order is vitiated. 3. He also points out that on 08.02.2013, the Land Tribunal adjourned the matter to 01.03.2013 for cross-examination and on 01.03.2013, it was adjourned to 15.03.2013 and on 15.03.2013, it was adjourned on request to 18.07.2014, but thereafter on 18.07.2014, an application had been filed for conducting spot inspection and this application was rejected on 12.12.2014 and on the same day, without granting the petitioners an opportunity to cross-examine the witness further, the Tribunal has reserved its judgment and proceeded to pass the order on 30.01.2015. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to not only complete the cross-examination, but also to adduce further evidence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9276 WP No. 18796 of 2015 4. Learned counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, contends that the matter has to be viewed from the proper perspective as the petitioner had cross- examined R.W.1. She points out that a perusal of the deposition would indicate that cross-examination of R.W.1 was complete in all respects and she also points out that when an application for conducting a spot inspection has been rejected, though the counsel for the tenant was present, no request was made for grant of time for further cross-examination or to adduce further evidence. 5. She further submits that having regard to the fact that the matter had been remanded thrice, there is no justification to entertain this procedural infirmity
Decision
and allow the writ petition. 6. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that an order was passed on 08.02.2013 in the following terms: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9276 WP No. 18796 of 2015 “8-2-2013 ¥ÀæPÀgÀt PÀÆUÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ¯ï ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¹zÉ 1-3-2013PÉÌ ªÀÄÄAzÀÆrzÉ.” 7. As could be seen from the said order, the Tribunal had adjourned the matter for further cross- examination to 01.03.2013. This would therefore indicate that the Tribunal was conscious of the fact that cross-examination was not complete and the petitioners were required to further cross-examine the witness. 8. The order sheet dated 18.07.2014 thereafter indicates that an application was filed for conducting spot inspection and for objection to said application, the matter was adjourned to 01.08.2014. The order sheet also indicates that on 01.08.2014, the matter was adjourned due to unavoidable circumstances to 05.09.2014, however, an application was filed for preponement on the same day and an order was passed in the following terms: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9276 WP No. 18796 of 2015 “1-8-2014: ¥ÀæPÀgÀt PÀÆUÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ C¤ªÁAiÀÄð PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢:5-9-2014gÀAzÀÄ C¥ÀgÁºÀß 3-00PÉÌ ªÀÄÄAzÀÆqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. F ¢£À PÀgÉAiÀįÁ¬ÄvÀÄ ªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÀ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CqÁé¸ÀªÉÄAlPÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ °TvÀªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAr¹ CzÀgÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä PÀQëzÁgÀjUÉ £ÁåAiÉÆzÀV¸À®Ä «£ÀAw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÉñÀªÁUÀ®Ä «£ÀAw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ:5-9-14PÉÌ ªÀÄÄAzÀÆrzÉ. ” 9. On 05.09.2014, the matter was adjourned to 26.09.2014 and on 26.09.2014, the matter was adjourned to 31.10.2014. Though the matter was adjourned to 31.10.2014, the order sheet does not indicate that the matter was called on 31.10.2014, but there is an entry in the order sheet that the matter was called on 12.12.2014. It is not indicated as to how and under whose request the matter was taken up nearly two months thereafter. The order that was passed on 12.12.2014 is in the following terms: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9276 WP No. 18796 of 2015 “12-12-2014: ¥ÀæPÀgÀt PÀgÉAiÀįÁ¬ÄvÀÄ J ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Cgï ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ LJ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß CzÉñÀPÁÌV ªÀÄÄAzÀÆrzÉ.” 10. As could be seen from the above, there is no explanation forthcoming as to how the matter was called on 12.12.2014 and on that day, the application for spot inspection was dismissed and the orders have been reserved. 11. In my view, this procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal indicates that the petitioners have not been given opportunity to cross-examine the witness and to lead further evidence. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to provide an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the witness. However, if the witness is not alive, since it is reported that R.W.1 is no more, the petitioner may be permitted to adduce further evidence, if he so desires. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9276 WP No. 18796 of 2015 12. At any rate, the Tribunal shall ensure that the matter be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if there is no Land Tribunal constituted as of now, then the matter shall be disposed of within three months from the date of constitution of Land Tribunal. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72