Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 260 (KAR)

Madan Vishnupant Deshpande v. State of Karnataka

2017-02-02

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, VINEET KOTHARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner Madan S/o. Vishnupant Deshapande has filed this writ appeal in this court with the following prayers. (i) To set aside the order dated 23/8/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPNo.106858/2016 (Lr.) and thereby allow the writ petition filed by the appellant. (ii) To grant such other order or issue such other direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23-08-2016 dismissing his writ petition No.106858/2016 filed by Madan S/o Vishnupant Deshapande Vs. State of Karnataka and others, upholding the order of the Land Tribunal, whereby the Land Tribunal rejected the application of the present petitioner for impleadment in the proceedings pending before it. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has submitted before us that in view of the remand of the proceedings made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, while allowing the WP No.22725/1997 in the case of Chandrashekhar Ramachandra Deshapande Vs. State of Karnataka and others, vide order dated 30-09-1997, since the present petitioner, the cousin of the petitioner therein before the Court, Sri Chandrashekhar Deshapande, and claiming parity with that the petitioner also deserves to be heard by the learned Tribunal in pursuance of the said remand order. 4. The operative portion of the learned Single Judge, which became final in that case is quoted below for ready reference: “For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure ‘B’ in case No.28+29 of Khanapur dt.21/1976 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Khanapur, is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the said Land Tribunal with a direction to take the case on file, implead the petitioner in this writ petition as a party to the proceedings and after giving notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and given them an opportunity to adduce their evidence or additional evidence as the case may be, decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs.” 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the private respondent Mr. Parties to bear their own costs.” 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the private respondent Mr. Sachin S. Magadum, vehemently submitted before the court that the family branch of the present appellant-petitioner viz., Vishnupant Deshapande had already lost the legal battle before this court with the rejection of his writ petition filed by his father way back in the year 1976 and thereafter, even the writ appeals filed by him having been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, rights of the father of the present petitioner-appellant viz., Vishnupant Vasudev Deshapande came to be finally determined with the rejection of the writ appeal and therefore, the present appellant-petitioner has no right to seek impleadment before the learned Tribunal at this stage, again riding on the back of the order passed in favour of Chandrashekhar under Order Annexure–K dated 30-09-1997 as his presence before the learned land Tribunal is neither necessary nor proper. He submitted that in pursuance of the said remand order, if Sri. Chandrashekhar R.Deshapande succeeds in establishing their rights, the present petitioner claiming through his father Sri. Vishnupant Deshapande can always claim his rights in the property by filing a partition suit, against them. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are satisfied that allowing the application for impleadment of the present petitioner-appellant does not finally determine the rights of the appellant-petitioner in the land in question itself. It only gives an opportunity of hearing to the present appellant petitioner by the Land Tribunal, which is admittedly seized of the matter now at this stage upon the remand of the case made vide order dated: 30-09-1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No.22725/1997 filed by Sri. Chandrashekhar R. Deshapande against the State and one Sri Ravi S/o Gangubai, whose interests are represented by the learned counsel for the respondent before this Court. 7. The impleadment of the present appellant-petitioner before the learned Tribunal on the contrary may avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings and the respective rights of the parties upon the relevant evidence can be determined by the land Tribunal in a more proper manner and therefore, we are of the opinion that the present appellant-petitioner also has a right to be heard by the Land Tribunal for deciding of his tenancy by it. Therefore, we find considerable force in the submissions by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner and in our opinion, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the same is allowed by setting aside the order dated 23/8/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, we direct the Land Tribunal to allow the present appellant-petitioner to be impleaded before it and then proceed further in pursuance of the remand order Annexure-K dated 30-09-1997. 9. No order as to costs.