LAWS(KAR)-2013-6-83

MEENAXI Vs. PANDURANG BHIMRAO LAXMESHWAR

Decided On June 14, 2013
Meenaxi and Others Appellant
V/S
Pandurang Bhimrao Laxmeshwar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 105/2011 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad has come up in this miscellaneous second appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 26/06/2012 passed therein. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the case leading to this miscellaneous second appeal are as under:--

(2.) It is also seen that subsequent to agreement of sale and prior to acquisition of land by KIADB, the said land was converted into residential plots after getting the land converted for non-agricultural purpose, nearly 59 plots were sold to different persons and only 9 plots were left unsold. In Misc. Case No. 67/2010, under Section 31 of the Act, rights of the parties were adjudicated and an order was passed holding right of the petitioner to receive compensation for the unsold plots. The said finding is subject-matter of the appeal which was challenged by the respondents therein who felt aggrieved by the said order. Though the respondents were required to file the appeal in the appropriate Court, i.e. in the High Court, they wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of District Court, Hubli to impugn the judgment and decree passed in Misc. Case. 67/2010.

(3.) In the said proceedings they suffered an adverse order and later, having realised that they have committed blunder in approaching the district court instead of this court to challenge the said order, have come up in this Miscellaneous Second Appeal. In this appeal they have sought for setting aside the judgment passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court Dharwad in the proceeding initiated by themselves on the ground that the proceedings initiated by them was in a court having no jurisdiction to entertain the same and the decree passed therein is nullity. In support of that, they tried to rely on several judgments. However, when this appeal had come up for admission, learned counsel appearing for the respondents also came up before this Court with objection regarding maintainability of this appeal inasmuch as the decree passed by the District Judge is nullity. Both the parties to this proceedings admit that the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hubli, in Misc. Case No. 105/2011 while sitting in judgment over the order passed in Misc. Case No. 67/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, is nullity.