Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1031 (KAR)

Palakshappa v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-04

ALOK ARADHE, P.KRISHNA BHAT

body2022
JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. - This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 has been filed against the order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.3 has been allowed. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that land bearing Sy.No.83/2B, and Sy.No.83/3 (hereinafter referred to as 'schedule lands' for short) situate at Harosagara village, Basavapatna Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District, was recorded in the name of respondent No.3 as tenant. However, his name was deleted from the revenue records. The respondent No.3 thereupon filed an application for rectification of the pahani entry. The respondent No.3 thereafter filed an application in Form No.7 on 08.02.1975 in respect of schedule lands. The Land Tribunal by an order dated 23.07.1979 granted occupancy rights in favour of the appellant. 3. The aforesaid order was challenged in a writ petition viz., W.P.No.4143/1979 by respondent No.2 which was remitted by a bench of this Court to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal thereafter by an order dated 30.11.1981 rejected the claim of respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.31990/1981, which was remanded by an order dated 04.02.1982. The land tribunal after the remand by an order dated 21.01.1986 granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3. 4. Again an order of remand dated 03.11.2002 was passed in W.A.No.5143/1999. The Land Tribunal thereafter by an order dated 30.12.2003 rejected the claim of respondent No.3. The said order is again challenged in W.P.No.2989/2004, in which again an order of remand was passed on 08.10.2007. The Land Tribunal by an order dated 11.11.2011 rejects the claim of respondent No.3. 5. The said order was assailed by respondent No.3 in W.P.No.43865/2011. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 08.06.2022 has set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and has remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal to pass a fresh order. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not aggrieved by an order of remand. However, it is submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the order dated 27.06.2012 referred to in para 14 of the order passed by learned Single Judge was modified by a division bench of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not aggrieved by an order of remand. However, it is submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the order dated 27.06.2012 referred to in para 14 of the order passed by learned Single Judge was modified by a division bench of this Court. It is further submitted that order of injunction granted in favour of respondent No.3 pending reconsideration of the matter by the Land Tribunal would cause prejudice to the appellant. 7. We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The learned Single Judge has inter alia by referring to orders dated 27.06.2012, 03.01.2014, 04.02.2014 has held that respondent No.3 is in possession of the schedule lands since 1986. Therefore, his possession has been protected pending adjudication of the matter by the Land Tribunal. Even otherwise, the respondent No.3 cannot be forcibly dispossessed from the schedule lands. 8. We do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. However, we clarify that the Land Tribunal shall decide the matter afresh in the light of observations made in the order dated 08.06.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.43865/2011, without being influenced by the fact that an order of injunction has been issued in favour of respondent No.3. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.