DATE: 11/02/2025
BENCH: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
FACTS:
The appellant's father, Siddaveerappa, was in possession of 23 acres and 20 guntas of land in Tavarekere Village, Magadi Taluk, as a tenant. He filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Magadi Taluk (now in Bangalore South Taluk) under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, seeking occupancy rights for Survey Nos. 150 and 151, measuring 9 acres and 14 acres 20 guntas, respectively. On April 11, 1981, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in his favor, and a Certificate of Registration of Tenancy (Form No. 10) was issued. Subsequently, he continued cultivating the land peacefully. However, in 2004, the appellant sought rectification of the Tribunal’s 1981 order to correct the land's extent and survey numbers. The Tribunal dismissed the request, citing a lack of authority to modify its own orders. The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court in W.P. No. 45408 of 2004, which, on September 2, 2005, set aside the Tribunal's decision and remanded the matter for reconsideration. Following the remand, the Tribunal, on October 12, 2007, modified its earlier order and issued a fresh certificate for Survey No. 151 (2 acres and 20 guntas) and Survey No. 153/1 (21 acres).
In 2008, the respondents challenged the Tribunal’s 2007 order in W.P. No. 1331 of 2008 before the High Court. The Single Judge disposed of the petition on February 25, 2013, clarifying that the appellant was not entitled to Survey No. 153 and that Survey No. 153/1 should be read as Survey Nos. 150 and 151. In 2016, the appellant orally sought correction of this order, leading to a modification by the Single Judge on January 19, 2016, which confirmed the Tribunal’s 2007 order. Aggrieved, the respondents filed W.A. No. 683 of 2018, arguing that the correction was made without giving them an opportunity to contest. On September 11, 2019, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s correction but clarified that Survey No. 150 substituted Survey No. 153/1. The appellant’s Review Petition (No. 535 of 2019) was dismissed on March 4, 2020, leading to the present appeal.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case is whether the extension of the sentencing made in the judgement dated 19/01/2016 affects the modification made in the order dated 25/02/2013.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
In light of the improper procedure adopted by the appellant in seeking a modification of the order dated 25.02.2013 through an oral submission “for being spoken to” after a lapse of three years, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 683/2018, the order in Review Petition No. 535/2019, as well as the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.02.2013 and 19.01.2016 in W.P. No. 1331/2008. Consequently, W.P. No. 1331/2008 is restored to the file of the High Court, to be heard afresh in accordance with law. We impose costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant, payable to private respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
The appellant’s approach in seeking a modification of the order through an oral submission without a formal application, without notifying the respondents, and after a significant delay of three years, was in clear violation of judicial propriety, established legal procedures, and the principles of natural justice. Judicial orders must have finality and cannot be altered arbitrarily based on unilateral oral submissions, as emphasized in Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association (2023) 10 SCC 817. The learned Single Judge’s acceptance of such an oral request and modification of the order was legally unsustainable and set a bad precedent, warranting judicial correction.
Furthermore, the confusion in this matter arose primarily due to the appellant’s improper method of seeking modification, which led to protracted litigation and an inconclusive resolution of the dispute. The High Court's Division Bench attempted to clarify the modified order but could not fully resolve the controversy. To ensure a fair adjudication, the most appropriate course of action is to restore W.P. No. 1331/2008 for fresh adjudication, thereby upholding procedural integrity and safeguarding the rights of all parties involved.
ANALYSIS:
The court's decision underscores the fundamental principles of judicial finality, procedural propriety, and natural justice. The appellant's act of seeking a modification of the 2013 order through an oral submission in 2016, without following the prescribed legal procedures or notifying the respondents, was a direct violation of due process. The court correctly observed that judicial pronouncements must remain stable and cannot be altered based on unilateral oral submissions made years after their issuance. By setting aside the modified orders and restoring W.P. No. 1331/2008 for fresh adjudication, the court sought to rectify the procedural lapses that had led to ambiguity and legal uncertainty. The reliance on Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association (2023) 10 SCC 817 reinforced the necessity of legal certainty and the importance of adhering to proper review mechanisms when seeking modifications to judicial orders.
Additionally, the court's ruling highlights the repercussions of circumventing established legal processes. The appellant’s improper approach not only prolonged the litigation but also resulted in confusion regarding the correct land survey numbers and entitlements. The Division Bench's attempt to clarify the matter could not fully resolve the controversy, further complicating the dispute. By directing a fresh hearing of W.P. No. 1331/2008, the court ensured that all parties would have an opportunity to present their arguments in a legally sound manner. Moreover, the imposition of costs on the appellant serves as a deterrent against similar procedural misconduct in the future. This decision ultimately reinforces the importance of procedural discipline in judicial proceedings, preventing the erosion of legal certainty and ensuring that justice is administered fairly.
info@adhwaitha.com
