IRANGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil petition, petitioner has prayed for recalling the order dated 18-7-1986 passed in Writ Petition No.32247/82 as well as for recalling the records of the said writ petition, which was renumbered before the Appellate Authority in pursuance of order dated 18-7-1986 to be R.A. No. 145/86.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manjunath, made submission on the line of the petition and according to the petitioner had filed the above mentioned writ petition No.32247/82 in this Court whereby the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act declaring that the holding of the petitioner was in excess of the ceiling limit by 13 acres 20 guntas. By an order dated 18-7-1986 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bopanna, the above mentioned writ petition No.32247/82 had been transferred for hearing and decision by the Appellate Authority and parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on the date mentioned in that order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the position of law is that the order passed under Section 67 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act by the Land Tribunal declaring the ceiling area and the surplus area to be final under that Section and no appeal did lie to any authority. He further submitted that this has been the view that had been taken by this Court earlier as well on reading of Section 67 itself in the case, of C.J. Shekharappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR l985 Kar 2775. The learned counsel submitted that as no appeal was maintainable, a writ petition had been preferred and the writ petition could not be transferred to Appellate Authority in view of the fact that Section 67 declares that Order under Section 67 in the matter of ceiling and declaration of surplus land etc., would be final. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in addition to referring to case of C.J. Shekharappa, referred to above, also made a reference to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Babasaheb alias Ranganagouda v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1988 Kar 3081 and submitted that in this case the Division Bench has laid down that order of the tribunal under Section 67(1) was final and no appeal lies. However, the aggrieved party if any, of that order has a recourse under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted, as such this Court could not transfer the writ petition for being heard by the Appellate Authority as legislation has not provided any appeal from that order. He submitted that right of appeal can be conferred or taken away by a legislative enactment enacted by legislation and not by order of the Court, when law does not so provide for an appeal. Sri Manjunath, submitted as such the order of the learned single Judge transfer- ring the writ petition to Appellate Authority suffered from error apparent on the face of record and as such the order of transfer of writ petition requires to be recalled by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. The learned Government Pleader, Sri S.S. Guttal, attempted to submit that under Section 118A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, it has been provided that appeal lies from every order of the Tribunal. He further submitted that Section 19 of the Amending Act conferred power of the High Court to transfer the writ petition, whether filed earlier or after the commencement of the amending Act, namely Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1986. The learned Government Pleader submitted that as such the order of transfer of writ petition to the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or suffering from error apparent on the face of the record. But he fairly conceded one thing that Section 67 of the Act no doubt declares the order passed by the Tribunal if ceiling matters is to be final and has been so interpreted by this Court and on earlier occasions in the High Court case referred to by the counsel for the petitioner. His only contention is that when power to transfer the writ petition to the Appellate Authority had been given and when the High Court transferred the writ petition and Section declared that it has to be deemed to be an appeal before the Appellate Authority, it has to be taken that it would be an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

(3.) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Material portion of Section 67 may be quoted here.(1)( a) Save as provided in Section 66A, on receipt of the declaration under Section 66 the Tahsildar shall-(i) verify the particulars contained therein as regards the survey number and the extent of the land;(ii) determine to which class, A, B, C, or D, the land belongs; and(iii) place the declaration and the connected records before the Tribunal.(aa) ..............(b) Thereupon and after such enquiry as may be prescribed, the Tribunal shall determine the extent of the holding and the area by which such extent exceeds the ceiling area.(c) Where the total extent of the holding so determined by the Tribunal is equal to or less than the ceiling area, the person concerned shall be entitled to retain his entire holding, but where the total extent is more than the ceiling area, such person shall be liable to surrender such extent of land as will, after such surrender, bring the total extent of land retained by him to the extent of the ceiling area.(d) TIie order of the Tribunal shall be final and shall be communicated to the person concerned and also the Tahsildar.(Underlining is mine)The other parts of the Section is not relevant for our purpose. Clause (d) declares that the order of the Tribunal to be final. The expression 'final' is indicative of the fact that no appeal shall lie from the order that has been declared to be final. This provision was interpreted by this Court in the case of C.J. Shekharappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1985 Kar 2775. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kudoor, J., as he then was after considering the material provision has been pleased to lay down as under: