Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 886 (KAR)

MUNIAKKAYYAMMA v. HANUMAKKA

2001-12-06

CHIDANANDA ULLAL

body2001
CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is represented by Sri N. Raveendra Reddy, whereas the contesting respondent 1 is represented by Sri T. H. Chikkavenkategowda. The respondent 2-Land Tribunal and the respondent 3-State are represented by the learned Government Pleader, Sri Bychappa. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Reddy had taken me through the impugned order under challenge, copy as at annexure-C to writ petition. It was his submission that in filing the instant writ petition, his party had challenged the impugned order on the ground that his party had not been served with the notice earlier to passing of the impugned order. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal could sustain in law. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, Sri chikkavenkategowda supported the impugned order. It was his argument that the Land Tribunal was forced to pass the impugned order for a good reason that the petitioner had refused to receive the notice that came to be issued by the respondent 2-Land Tribunal and it was in the said circumstances the Land Tribunal had passed the impugned order. Yet another line of argument of Sri Chikkavenkategowda was that the impugned order came to be passed as early as on 21-9-1981, whereas the petitioner herein had filed the instant writ petition as late as on 12-4-1999. Therefore, according to him, viewed from any angle, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal has to be confirmed by this Court. ( 4 ) AT the stage of preliminary hearing, in fact, I directed the learned government Pleader to secure the records and he did secure the records. What had been secured by him was also placed before me. It was noted from the Land Tribunal records that the Land Tribunal had issued notice to the petitioner for personal service on her and that on refusal to receive the notice by her, the same came to be affixed straightaway on the door of her house. What had been secured by him was also placed before me. It was noted from the Land Tribunal records that the Land Tribunal had issued notice to the petitioner for personal service on her and that on refusal to receive the notice by her, the same came to be affixed straightaway on the door of her house. It is to be observed here that as per sub-clause (iv) of Rule 43 dealing with the subject, Manner of service of notice or order under the Act or the Rules', it is provided therein that, if none of the modes of service is practicable under Rule 43 (d) (i) to (d) (iii), the notice should be affixed on a conspicuous part of the last known place of residence or the business of the person concerned. By that, it appears to me that the service of affixture is only after exhausting the other modes of service and that cannot be straightaway on the refusal of notice by a party. 4-A. Therefore, in my considered view, the so-called affixture of notice to the petitioner by the respondent 2-Land Tribunal was not in consonance with the rule in question and that being the case, 1 do not think the service of notice by the respondent 2 in passing the impugned order at Annexure-C be construed as valid. It is the case of the petitioner that she had no knowledge with regard to the impugned order. ( 5 ) IN the above facts and circumstances, it appears to me, it has to be construed that the petitioner in fact had no notice of the impugned order and that when she had come to know of that order, she approached this court for setting aside the same. If she had no knowledge of passing the impugned order, it is natural that, that order has to go in its entirety. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, this writ petition is allowed. ( 7 ) THE impugned order dated 21-9-1981 in case No. LRF 1020/75-76 passed by the respondent 2-Land Tribunal, copy at Annexure-C to writ petition stands quashed. ( 8 ) THE claim of the respondent 1 stands remitted to the respondent 2-Land Tribunal with a direction to hold de novo enquiry in the matter of claim made by her. ( 7 ) THE impugned order dated 21-9-1981 in case No. LRF 1020/75-76 passed by the respondent 2-Land Tribunal, copy at Annexure-C to writ petition stands quashed. ( 8 ) THE claim of the respondent 1 stands remitted to the respondent 2-Land Tribunal with a direction to hold de novo enquiry in the matter of claim made by her. ( 9 ) THE Land Tribunal is directed to dispose of her claim in consonance with Section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act read with Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules. ( 10 ) LET both the contending parties i. e. , the petitioner on the one side and the respondent 1 on the other appear before the Land Tribunal on 7-1-2002. ( 11 ) THE Land Tribunal is further directed to dispose of the claim in question within a period of 6 months from that date. ( 12 ) THE learned Government Pleader is directed to return the records of the Land Tribunal at the earliest. --- *** --- .