JAYALAKSHMI URF BABY Vs. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.486/2013 dtd. 4/7/2019, the appellant therein has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.139/1 of Kodathi Village, Bangalore South Taluk. Respondent No.2 has no right whatsoever on the said property. Respondent No.2 had filed O.S.No.729/1989 on the file of Prl. II Munsiff, Bangalore in respect of the said property for a decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction against the predecessor in title of the petitioner herein and the said suit was dismissed. Respondent No.2 filed a Regular Appeal against the said dismissal which was also dismissed and thereafter, preferred a Second Appeal which also was dismissed. The petitioner purchased the property after the dismissal of the original suit and was a party to the proceedings in the Regular Appeal and Second Appeal. When the appellate proceedings were going on, respondent No.2 filed Form No.7A before respondent No.1 contending that he is a tenant of the property concerned, contrary to the stand taken by him in the civil proceedings wherein he contended that he was the owner. Respondent No.1 without notice to the petitioner herein granted occupancy rights in respect of the property in favour of respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.486/2013 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short 'KAT'). The KAT appreciating the facts, set aside the order passed by respondent No.1 and remanded the matter back to respondent No.1. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the ground that KAT ought to have dismissed the application filed by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1.

(3.) It is noticed that KAT in the impugned order, has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to respondent No.1 only on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner and she was not heard in the matter. I do not see any error in the order of KAT. It is open for the petitioner to take up all contentions before respondent No.1, including the conduct of respondent No.2 contending that he is the owner of the property in civil proceedings initiated by him and to the contrary contending that he is a tenant on the property before respondent No.1. It is needless to state that in that event of petitioner establishing the said facts before respondent No.1, adverse inference would be drawn against respondent No.2 in this regard. Further, as the proceedings in respect of the land in question is pending since few decades, it is advisable to direct respondent No.1 to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible.