Sapurabi Vs. Shivalingegowds & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4216 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 2997 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 2997 of 1999)
Petitioner: Sapurabi
Respondent: Shivalingegowds & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4216 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 2997 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 2997 of 1999)
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 25, 2000
Head Note:
LAND AND TENANCY/PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Sections 48, 48A – Occupancy certificate – Issuance – Land Tribunal deciding – While chairman was in favour of tenant, other two members deciding against – No reasons given – Matter agitated by both parties under mistake – Various writs and orders passed – Landlord ultimately approaching the Tribunal for reconsideration and further writs filed – Ultimately, tenants writ allowed against mutation in favour of landlord – SLP by landlord. Held that all orders and judgments after the orders of Tribunal were redundant and unnecessary. Since, the majority view of Tribunal was without reason, matter remitted back to consider the question of grant of certificate.
Held:
If the effective order of the Tribunal was an order of the majority, then the withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the appellant should not go against the appellant. It decides nothing. It will be noticed that the subsequent proceedings in the case which emanated from a notice issued by the Tribunal to the respondent in the proceeding initiated by the landholder, the landholder had again proceeded on the mis apprehension that the order of the Tribunal was against him,. All these proceedings emanating from the notice issued from the Tribunal to the tenant in the landholder’s application (which was based on a misapprehension), namely the series of judgments which went against the appellant in the various Courts therefore appear to us to be redundant and of no effect. Therefore, they have all to be ignored. They are declared as such.
(Para 8)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before us is a land holder and the respondent claims to be his tenant in respect of 3 acres and 10 guntas of land. On the basis that he was a tenant, the respondent filed an application before the Land Tribunal at Arasikere, Arasikere Taluk, State of Karnataka. An order was passed on 30.6.79 by the said Tribunal. It consisted of a minority judgment by the Chairman and a dissenting note by two other members of the Tribunal. In the order of the Chairman, reference was made to a document executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent as a mortgage and treating the respondent as a mortgagee in possesson of land which was the subject matter of the self-redeeming mortgage. But even so, the Chairman took the view that the facts of the case showed that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was that of landlord and tenant. On that basis, the Chairman held that the respondent, who was the applicant before him, was entitled to occupancy certificate. But the other two members forming the majority of the Tribunal signed a dissenting note as follows:-
“As the applicant is a self -redeeming mortgagee, we are not agreeable for the above opinion”.
No reasons were assigned in the dissenting note of the order of the majority.
3. Thereafter, the subsequent events that have taken place reveal that both the appellant and the respondent proceeded on the basis that the above order was in favour of the respondent.
4. The appellant landholder went by the order of the Chairman and did not notice the dissenting note of the majority and therefore, he filed a Writ Petition No. 10785/979 in the High Court and also filed an application before the Land Tribunal to recall its order. Later on, after noticing that the order of the Chairman, which was against him, was a minority opinion, and that the majority opinion of the other two members was in his favour, the appellant withdrew the said writ petition, on 19.8.80.
5. By that time, as already stated,the appellant had also moved an application before the Tribunal for re-consideration, thinking that the order of the Tribunal was against him. Once again he was mistaken in going by the opinion of the Chairman. In that application for reconsideration filed by the appellant, notice was issued by the Tribunal to the other respondent under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The respondent felt that the appellant could be pinned down to the stand that the order of the Tribunal was in respondent’s favour. Therefore, the respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 2212/82 in the High Court and challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal to him, on 16.11.81.The High Court felt that the withdrawal of the writ petition earlier by the landholder on 19.8.80 would come in his way and accordingly the writ petition of the respondent was allowed by order dated 19th March, 1985, questioning the notice issued by the Land Tribunal. Against the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1960/85.This was also dismissed on 26.11.85 and an SLP filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court.
6. It appears that, subsequently, the appellant filed a Review Petition before the learned Single Judge and that application was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 3.8.88. On the basis of the order in the review petition, an order for mutation was passed in favour of the appellant on 16.12.90 and an order was issued in his favour on 17.12.92. Against the order dated 16.12.90, permitting mutation in favour of the landholder, the respondent filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner Hassan in R.A. No. 128/92-93 and the said appeal was dismissed. Then the respondent filed a Writ Petition NO. 30818/97, questioning the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 20.9.95 and the said writ petition was allowed on 22.1.1998 in favour of the respondent. The appellant then preferred a Writ Appeal No. 1015/98 and the same was dismissed on 27.3.98.
7. We are also informed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the appellant in the review application, on 3.8.88, was carried in appeal (Writ Appeal No. 1939/90) by the respondent and the said order was set aside by the High Court by its order dated 17.3.92 and an SLP filed by the appellant against that order was dismissed by this Court.
8. It will be noticed from the abovesaid long span of litigation covering a period of more than 21 years, that both the appellant and the respondent had proceeded upon an obvious mistake, as to the effect of the original order of the Tribunal dated 30.6.79. While the decision of the majority of the members was in favour of the appellant, the appellant mistook that the order was against him as he went by the minority order of the Chairman. That was the reason as to why he withdrew his writ petition in the High Court on 19.8.80. If the effective order of the Tribunal was an order of the majority, then the withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the appellant should not go against the appellant. It decides nothing. It will be noticed that the subsequent proceedings in the case which emanated from a notice issued by the Tribunal to the respondent in the proceeding initiated by the landholder, the landholder had again proceeded on the mis apprehension that the order of the Tribunal was against him,. All these proceedings emanating from the notice issued from the Tribunal to the tenant in the landholder’s application (which was based on a misapprehension), namely the series of judgments which went against the appellant in the various Courts therefore appear to us to be redundant and of no effect. Therefore, they have all to be ignored. If the approach of the appellant to the Tribunal was not necessary at all – because the order of the majority was in his favour – the notice on that application to the respondent and its being questioned at the instance of the respondent are all redundant and become unnecessary. They are declared as such.
9. But, on the facts of the present case, both sides suffered from the misapprehension as to whether the Land Tribunal’s order was against the appellant, So far as the respondent was concern, he had not chosen to file any writ petition against the order of the Tribunal for he too assumed that the Tribunal decided in his favour. So far as the appellant was concerned, he had proceeded on the assumption that the order was against him and he took out various proceedings (which were unnecessary) and which went against him and he took out various proceedings (which were unnecessary) and which went against him.
10. In this state of affairs, we have to consider what would meet the ends of justice in this case.
11. It is true that the appellant has the decision of the majority by the members of the Tribunal dated 30.6.79 in his favour. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the majority opinion does not contain any reasons. In this state of affairs, we consider it necessary to re-open the order of the Tribunal dated 30.6.79 and to give an opportunity to both sides to go again before the Tribunal for a decision on the merits of the application filed by the respondent before the said Tribunal. Question will be whether respondent was a tenant entitled to an occupancy certificate?
12. We, therefore, remit the matter to the Land Tribunal for a fresh decision on the respondent’s application.
13. It is not clear what pleadings the parties had earlier filed before the Land Tribunal. Parties are permitted to file additional pleadings consistent with the pleadings, if any, filed earlier. Parties will be at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence before the said Tribunal. The Tribunal will then proceed to decide the application filed by the respondent for grant of occupancy certificate in the light of the evidence and in accordance with law.
14. In view of the long delay in the matter, we direct the Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the respondent within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order, after hearing both sides.
15. The result is that the order dated 30.6.79 of the Tribunal is set aside. It is made clear that the various subsequent orders passed by the High Court and other Revenue Authorities will not come in the way of a fresh decision by the Tribunal on the merits of the pleas raised by the respondent in his application filed by the respondent and also on the basis of the pleas set up by the appellant, landholder. We also make it clear that we should not be understood as having said anything either in favour of the appellant or in favour of the respondents on the merits of the case. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal as stated above.
16. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before us is a land holder and the respondent claims to be his tenant in respect of 3 acres and 10 guntas of land. On the basis that he was a tenant, the respondent filed an application before the Land Tribunal at Arasikere, Arasikere Taluk, State of Karnataka. An order was passed on 30.6.79 by the said Tribunal. It consisted of a minority judgment by the Chairman and a dissenting note by two other members of the Tribunal. In the order of the Chairman, reference was made to a document executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent as a mortgage and treating the respondent as a mortgagee in possesson of land which was the subject matter of the self-redeeming mortgage. But even so, the Chairman took the view that the facts of the case showed that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was that of landlord and tenant. On that basis, the Chairman held that the respondent, who was the applicant before him, was entitled to occupancy certificate. But the other two members forming the majority of the Tribunal signed a dissenting note as follows:-
“As the applicant is a self -redeeming mortgagee, we are not agreeable for the above opinion”.
No reasons were assigned in the dissenting note of the order of the majority.
3. Thereafter, the subsequent events that have taken place reveal that both the appellant and the respondent proceeded on the basis that the above order was in favour of the respondent.
4. The appellant landholder went by the order of the Chairman and did not notice the dissenting note of the majority and therefore, he filed a Writ Petition No. 10785/979 in the High Court and also filed an application before the Land Tribunal to recall its order. Later on, after noticing that the order of the Chairman, which was against him, was a minority opinion, and that the majority opinion of the other two members was in his favour, the appellant withdrew the said writ petition, on 19.8.80.
5. By that time, as already stated,the appellant had also moved an application before the Tribunal for re-consideration, thinking that the order of the Tribunal was against him. Once again he was mistaken in going by the opinion of the Chairman. In that application for reconsideration filed by the appellant, notice was issued by the Tribunal to the other respondent under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The respondent felt that the appellant could be pinned down to the stand that the order of the Tribunal was in respondent’s favour. Therefore, the respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 2212/82 in the High Court and challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal to him, on 16.11.81.The High Court felt that the withdrawal of the writ petition earlier by the landholder on 19.8.80 would come in his way and accordingly the writ petition of the respondent was allowed by order dated 19th March, 1985, questioning the notice issued by the Land Tribunal. Against the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1960/85.This was also dismissed on 26.11.85 and an SLP filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court.
6. It appears that, subsequently, the appellant filed a Review Petition before the learned Single Judge and that application was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 3.8.88. On the basis of the order in the review petition, an order for mutation was passed in favour of the appellant on 16.12.90 and an order was issued in his favour on 17.12.92. Against the order dated 16.12.90, permitting mutation in favour of the landholder, the respondent filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner Hassan in R.A. No. 128/92-93 and the said appeal was dismissed. Then the respondent filed a Writ Petition NO. 30818/97, questioning the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 20.9.95 and the said writ petition was allowed on 22.1.1998 in favour of the respondent. The appellant then preferred a Writ Appeal No. 1015/98 and the same was dismissed on 27.3.98.
7. We are also informed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the appellant in the review application, on 3.8.88, was carried in appeal (Writ Appeal No. 1939/90) by the respondent and the said order was set aside by the High Court by its order dated 17.3.92 and an SLP filed by the appellant against that order was dismissed by this Court.
8. It will be noticed from the abovesaid long span of litigation covering a period of more than 21 years, that both the appellant and the respondent had proceeded upon an obvious mistake, as to the effect of the original order of the Tribunal dated 30.6.79. While the decision of the majority of the members was in favour of the appellant, the appellant mistook that the order was against him as he went by the minority order of the Chairman. That was the reason as to why he withdrew his writ petition in the High Court on 19.8.80. If the effective order of the Tribunal was an order of the majority, then the withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the appellant should not go against the appellant. It decides nothing. It will be noticed that the subsequent proceedings in the case which emanated from a notice issued by the Tribunal to the respondent in the proceeding initiated by the landholder, the landholder had again proceeded on the mis apprehension that the order of the Tribunal was against him,. All these proceedings emanating from the notice issued from the Tribunal to the tenant in the landholder’s application (which was based on a misapprehension), namely the series of judgments which went against the appellant in the various Courts therefore appear to us to be redundant and of no effect. Therefore, they have all to be ignored. If the approach of the appellant to the Tribunal was not necessary at all – because the order of the majority was in his favour – the notice on that application to the respondent and its being questioned at the instance of the respondent are all redundant and become unnecessary. They are declared as such.
9. But, on the facts of the present case, both sides suffered from the misapprehension as to whether the Land Tribunal’s order was against the appellant, So far as the respondent was concern, he had not chosen to file any writ petition against the order of the Tribunal for he too assumed that the Tribunal decided in his favour. So far as the appellant was concerned, he had proceeded on the assumption that the order was against him and he took out various proceedings (which were unnecessary) and which went against him and he took out various proceedings (which were unnecessary) and which went against him.
10. In this state of affairs, we have to consider what would meet the ends of justice in this case.
11. It is true that the appellant has the decision of the majority by the members of the Tribunal dated 30.6.79 in his favour. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the majority opinion does not contain any reasons. In this state of affairs, we consider it necessary to re-open the order of the Tribunal dated 30.6.79 and to give an opportunity to both sides to go again before the Tribunal for a decision on the merits of the application filed by the respondent before the said Tribunal. Question will be whether respondent was a tenant entitled to an occupancy certificate?
12. We, therefore, remit the matter to the Land Tribunal for a fresh decision on the respondent’s application.
13. It is not clear what pleadings the parties had earlier filed before the Land Tribunal. Parties are permitted to file additional pleadings consistent with the pleadings, if any, filed earlier. Parties will be at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence before the said Tribunal. The Tribunal will then proceed to decide the application filed by the respondent for grant of occupancy certificate in the light of the evidence and in accordance with law.
14. In view of the long delay in the matter, we direct the Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the respondent within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order, after hearing both sides.
15. The result is that the order dated 30.6.79 of the Tribunal is set aside. It is made clear that the various subsequent orders passed by the High Court and other Revenue Authorities will not come in the way of a fresh decision by the Tribunal on the merits of the pleas raised by the respondent in his application filed by the respondent and also on the basis of the pleas set up by the appellant, landholder. We also make it clear that we should not be understood as having said anything either in favour of the appellant or in favour of the respondents on the merits of the case. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal as stated above.
16. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
