Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 118 (KAR)

RUDRAVVA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1978-04-18

CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, VENKATASWAMI

body1978
CHANPRASHEKHAR, CJ. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals aie from the common Order of Rama Jois, J. , in WP. Nos. 13754 and 13755 of 1977. ( 2 ) THE appellants herein were respondents 3 and 4 therein; respondent-2 herein was the petitioner in WP. No. 13754 of 1977 and respondent 4 herein was the petitioner in WP. No. 13754 of 1977 and respondent 4 herein was the petitioner in WP. NO. 13755 of 1977. For the sake of convinience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to according to their positions in the writ petitions. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT 4 had filed On 10-5-1977 two applications under Sec. 48a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, praying that he and his mother, resondent 3, might be registered as occupants of two lands. Those applt cations were allowed by the Land Tribunal and they were registered as occupants of those two lands. The order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by the petitioners who were the owners of these lands. Following the ruling of this Court in Venkatappa v. L. N. Dattatri, (1978) 1 Karlj. 90 , the learned single judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order of the land Tribunal on the sole ground that those applications were filed long after 31-12-1974 and that the applicant had not made any application for condonation of delay in presenting the applications for being registered as occupants. The learned single Judge observed that the Land Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the applications filed beyond time. ( 4 ) SHRI R. U. Goulay, learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the learned single Judge erred in holding that the Land Tribunal, acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the applications filed beyond time. He maintained that there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction of the land Tribunal in entertaining those applications and that as the petitioner had not pleaded the bar of limitation, the Land Tribunal was justified in considering those applications. ( 5 ) WE are unable to accept the contention of Shri Goulay that if no objection was raised by the opposite party before the Land Tribunal, it could entertain the applications filed beyond time. ( 5 ) WE are unable to accept the contention of Shri Goulay that if no objection was raised by the opposite party before the Land Tribunal, it could entertain the applications filed beyond time. When limitation is prescribed by a statute for presenting a plaint, an appeal or an application, is the duty of, the Court or the Tribunal to take note of such limitation no motu and to reject such plaint or appeal or an application filed beyond time, whether or not any objection is raised by the opposite party, unless the Court or the Tribunal is empowered to condone such delay and it considers fit to condone such delay. Thus, the learned single Judge was justified, in holding that the Land Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the application and that the proceedings of the Land Tribunal culminating its order dated 26-10-1977, were vitiated. ( 6 ) SHRI Goulay next contended that even if the proceedings before land Tribunal subsequent to the issue of notices in Form No. 9 of the karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) should be held to be invalid, it would still be open to the applicant before the Land Tribunal to make applications praying for condonation of delay in presenting the applications for being registered as occupants and that if such applications for condonation of delay should be made hereafter, it would be competent for the Land Tribunal to condone such day and then to proceed to consider such applications for being registered occupants and that hence the learned single Judge should have remanded the applications to the Land Tribunal to consider the applications for being registered as occupants. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Shri G. N. Jayaraju, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4, contended that when once this Court quashes (the proceedings of the Land Tribunal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications for being registered as occupant, filed beyond time and does not remand the case to the Land Tribunal, it is not open to the Land Tribunal thereafter to entertain an application for condonation of delay in filing, the applications for being registered as occupants. He sought to derive support for his contention from the observations of this court in Venkatappa v. . L. N. Dattatri (Supra ). He sought to derive support for his contention from the observations of this court in Venkatappa v. . L. N. Dattatri (Supra ). There, the Division Bench of this Court observed thus:" In our judgment the notice issued by the Tribunal in Form-9 was one without jurisdiction as the application of the appellant was made beyond the time allowed by law and he had not shown any cause for condonation of delay. The commencement of the proceedings for grant of occupancy right was, therefore, clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned single Judge should have quashed the entire proceeding's commencing with the issue of notice in Form-9 including the order of the Tribunal and it is unnecessary to go into the other grounds urged in the writ petition. Therefore, there is no ground to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh. " (underlining italics is ours) ( 8 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions of learned Counsel, it is neressary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The relevant portion of Sec. 48a of the Act, as that Section stands now, reads:" 48-A. Enquiry by the Tribunal, etc. _ (1) Every person entitled to be registered as an occupant under" Sec. 45 niay make an application to the Tribunal in this behalf. Every such application shall, save as provided in this Act, be made on or before the 31st day of Decr. 1974, provided that the Tribunal may, for sufficient cause shown, admit an application made beyond that date but on or before 30th june, 1977. "rule 19 of the- Rules reads : "19. Form of applied on and notice: (1) The application under sub-sec (l) of Sec. 48-A shall be in Form-7. " the relevant portions of Rule 40 read thus :" 40. . Appeals and applications: _ (1) Every appeal, petition, application or other document presented to any authority shall be presented by the party making such appeal or petition or application, or other document or by his recognised agent, his Pleader or Advocate, in the office during the office hours or be sent by registered post addressed to the authority to whom it is presented by designation. . . . (2) Every such appeal or petition or application or other document shall, unless a Form is prescribed for the purpose; (a ). . . . . . . . . . . (2) Every such appeal or petition or application or other document shall, unless a Form is prescribed for the purpose; (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f) if filed, after the expiry of the period of limitation, state the reasons for the delay : provided that where the appellant, applicant, or the petitioner wants the delay to be condoned he shall file a separate application alongwith an affidavit explaining the circumstances relied upon, failing which the appeal or petition or application shall be dismissed in limine : provided further that every appeal or petition or application or other document shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order in respect of which the appeal or petition or application or other document has been made and, also by as many true copies of the appeal memo or petition or application or other document as there are respondents or opponents. " ( 9 ) THOUGH Sec. 48a requires that every application for being registered a occupant, should be made on or before 31-12-74, power is conferred on the Tribunal to admit an application filed beyond that date on or before 30-6-77, if in the opinion of the Tribunal sufficient cause is shown for making application beyond 31-12-1974. ( 10 ) SUB-RULE (2)f of Rule 40 provides that unless a form is prescribed for an appeal, petition or application or other documents, such appeal petition or application filed after the expiry of the period of limitation, shall state the reasons for the delay. For an application for being registered as occupant, Form-7 has been prescribed and hence sub-rule (2) of rule 40 has no application for ah application for being registered as occupant. All that is necessary for the Tribunal to entertain an Application filed after 31-12-74 is that sufficient cause should be shown to admit that application. For an application for being registered as occupant, Form-7 has been prescribed and hence sub-rule (2) of rule 40 has no application for ah application for being registered as occupant. All that is necessary for the Tribunal to entertain an Application filed after 31-12-74 is that sufficient cause should be shown to admit that application. Such sufficient cause may be shown in any manner though it is usual to file an application accompanied by an affidavit setting out facts and circumstances from which sufficient cause can be inferred The more fact that along with the application for being registered as occupant a separate application for condonation of delay had not been filed, would not come in the way of the Land Tribunal holding that there was sufficient cause to admit such applications (for being registered as occupants) which were filed after 31-12-74. " An application for condonation of delay may be filed at any time before the Land Tribunal rejects an application for being registered as occupant, on the ground that the latter was filed beyond time and if an application for condoning the delay is filed, the land Tribunal has to consider sucn application after notice to the opponents and decide whether or not there is sufficient cause to admit an application for being registered as occupant in spite of it being filed beyond time. ( 11 ) IN Venkatappa's case (1) (supra) the Division Bench did not remit the case back to the Land Tribunal because it was not shown there that there was any question which remained to be considered by the land Tribunal. It is well settled that ivhere a quasi-judicial order of a tribunal is quashed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under art. 226, the Tribunal can, unless it lacks inherent jurisdiction, start fresh proceedings or continue the proceedings from the stage at which arose the illegality which led to such quashing and pass a fresh order according to law, even if this Court has not expressly remitted the case to the Tribunal. 226, the Tribunal can, unless it lacks inherent jurisdiction, start fresh proceedings or continue the proceedings from the stage at which arose the illegality which led to such quashing and pass a fresh order according to law, even if this Court has not expressly remitted the case to the Tribunal. We are unable to understand the decision in Venkatappa's case (1) (supra) as laying down that it is not competent for the Land Tribunal to consider an application for condonation of delay in presenting the application for being registered as occupant, if the application for condonation is made 'subsequent to this Court quashing the order for proceedings of the Land tribunal, ( 12 ) IN the present case the Land Tribunal had not rejected the applications for being registered as occupants. Hence, if an application should be made hereafter before the Land Tribunal for condonation of delay in presenting the applications for being registered as occupants, it is the duty of the Land Tribunal to consider such application after notice to the opposite party. ( 13 ) WITH this clarification, we dismiss these appeals. ( 14 ) IN the circumstance of these appeals, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. ( 15 ) SHRI Annadanayya Puranik, learned High Court Govt Advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance in these appeals within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .