LAWS(KAR)-2013-7-36

HANAMANTRAO SHANKAR KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On July 02, 2013
Hanamantrao Shankar Kulkarni Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Order dated 7th January, 2013, passed by the Learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 69796/2012, have presented this writ appeal. In the original petition filed by these appellants, they had sought for reviewing (recalling) the Order dated 5th July, 1996 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991 vide Annexure F therein and thereby restore the Order dated 10th December, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Gadag in No. KLA.SR:111+55 at Annexure E therein.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the predecessor of respondents 3 to 12 herein, viz., Ramappa Venkappa Shidnekoppa, i.e., the original applicant had filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing R.S. No. 118/1, measuring 12 acres 21 guntas, situate at Kalasapur Village, Gadag Taluk and District. The said application came to be rejected by the second respondent-Land Tribunal, Gadag. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Land Tribunal, the original applicant questioned the same by filing Writ Petition No. 12963/1978. That petition had come up for consideration before Learned Single Judge on 5th April, 1983 and Learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and quashed the Order dated 7th November, 1978 passed by the second respondent-Land Tribunal, Gadag, with a direction to the Land Tribunal to decide the matter after holding an enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules. The second respondent, in turn, after considering the matter in detail, passed an order on 10th December, 1987, once again rejecting Form No. 7 filed by the original applicant, viz., Ramappa Venkappa Shidnekoppa. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 10th December, 1987, the original applicant, Ramappa Venkappa Shidnekoppa and his brother Hanamappa Venkappa Shidnekoppa filed L.R.A. No. 288/1987 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad. In view of the amendment brought to the Land Reforms Act, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was abolished and the parties were permitted to file a civil petition under Section 17 of the amended Act. Accordingly, the predecessor of respondents 3 to 12 filed Civil Petition No. 907/1990 and the same was converted into Writ Petition No. 25925/1991. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Learned Single Judge on 5th July, 19% who allowed the petition and set-aside the Order dated 10th December, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal in proceedings No. KLR/SR/111/Gadag and directed the Land Tribunal to pass appropriate order on Form No. 7 filed by the original applicant, now represented by respondents 3 to 12, in light of the observation regarding sufficiency of the evidence on record by the original applicant, (represented by respondents 3 to 12) in support of their claim for registration of occupancy rights, in respect of the land in question. Be that as it may, being aggrieved by the Order dated 5th July, 1996 of Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991, the appellants herein filed Writ Petition No. 69796/2012, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the said order passed by the Land Tribunal, on the ground that they are not party to the proceedings and the order had been passed ex-parte and therefore, sought review or recall of the Order dated 5th July, 1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991 so as to restore the Order dated 10th December, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Gadag in proceedings No. KLR/SR/111+55.

(3.) The said Writ Petition had come up for consideration before Learned Single Judge and Learned Single Judge, by his Order dated 7th January, 2013 dismissed the said writ petition, reserving liberty to the appellants to seek leave of the Court to file an appeal. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellants are before this Court, praying to set-aside the impugned order.