R. MUNISWAMY Vs. K. MUNIKRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is not a party to the writ petitions. He has filed this writ appeal challenging the common order dated 13.09.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3793 of 2009 connected with Writ Petition Nos.14133 of 2009 and 25600 of 2009, on the ground that by virtue of the impugned order, his right is infringed. The appellant sought permission to prosecute the appeal. This court vide order dated 5.6.2014 granted permission to prosecute this appeal. Respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.14133 of 2009 and 25600 of 2009.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows: It is the case of the petitioner that he was in cultivation and enjoyment of land in Sy.No.161, 197, 184, 222 and 246 measuring 4 acres, 20 guntas, 25 guntas, 14 guntas and 22 guntas respectively and that he has not alienated or conveyed the aforesaid lands in favour of 3rd parties and he had continued in occupation. Petitioner being re-grantee under KVOA Act and order of re-grant has been caused by this court with a direction that all the concerned parties be heard by the Tahsildar, including the petitioner. That no notice of further proceedings was served on the petitioner after such remand. The same was challenged in appeals in M.A.Nos.52 of 1995 and 162 of 2006 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court III Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.10.2008. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2008 passed in M.A.No.52/1995 and 162/06 by the learned District Judge filed Writ Petition Nos.14133 of 2009 and 25600 of 2009. Another similar matter in Writ Petition No.3793 of 2009 filed by one L. Nanayana, respondent No.3 herein, was connected with these petitions. The learned Single Judge vide common order dated 13.09.2012, disposed off the writ petitions observing that the persons who had been re-granted the lands were required to be heard and the petitioners in the writ petitions being the person who had been re-granted the land not having been heard, resulted in failure of justice. It is on that short ground the matter would have to be remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. Though by efflux of time, there were several claimants who claimed legitimate transaction under which they have come into possession of the lands, it is also appropriate that they be given a right of hearing as well and to address the validity of their claims and quash the order of learned District Judge passed in the above said appeals.

(3.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2. Counsel for R1(a) and R3 is absent. Perused the records.