AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—This is a second round of litigation initiated by the Grama Panchayat of Herur in Koppa Taluk. The dispute is in regard to the power of the Tahsildar, Koppa Taluk in granting the site measuring 60 feet x 40 feet at Devagodu Village in Sy. No. 109 of any Koppa Taluk in favour of the 4th respondent.
It is the case of the 4th respondent that a land measuring 60 feet x 40 feet in Sy. No. 109 of Devagodu Village was granted by the Tahsildar in his favour and he has constructed a residential house and his unauthorized construction has been regularized by the Tahsildar. It is the case of the appellant/Grama Panchayat that 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 109 of Devagodu Village has been granted to the panchayat for the purpose of extension of village which includes area measuring 60 feet x 40 feet claimed by the 4th respondent. According to the panchayat, in an area of 10 feet x 10 feet, appellant has permitted the 4th respondent to carry on the business under the license.
When an attempt was made to dispossess respondent No. 4, he has filed a suit for injunction before the Civil Court. In the meanwhile, challenging the regularization made by the Tahsildar in favour of the 4th respondent, the appellant had filed a writ petition in this Court in W.P.13078/2002 which writ petition came to be rejected on 07.01.2004. While dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge has stated that the Tahsildar is justified in regularizing the unauthorized construction made by the 4th respondent herein. Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, the panchayat has not preferred any appeal. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge has become final.
Without seeking any liberty to withdraw the writ petition and to file an appeal, the appellant herein initiated fresh proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner questioning the order of the Tahsildar. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal of the appellant and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration against which 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur in R.A.59/04-05 which appeal came to be dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Revision Petition No. 518/05 which revision petition came to be allowed by the tribunal on 30.09.2010 on the ground that the appellant having lost the writ petition filed by it in W.P.13078/02, the appellant could not have initiated the proceedings afresh by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner could not have entertained the appeal filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the tribunal allowed the revision petition filed by the 4th respondent.
Challenging the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the appellant filed the writ petition. The writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.
Having heard counsel for the appellant and the respondent, the only point to be considered by us in this appeal is, "Whether the appellant had power to initiate the proceeding by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner after dismissal of its writ petition in W.P. 13078/2002.
Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the writ petition was filed by the appellant and in the aforesaid writ petition it had challenged the grant made by the Tahsildar in favour of the 4th respondent. The writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that there is no lacuna in the order passed by the Tahsildar in favour of the 4th respondent.
When the writ petition is dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, if the appellant had been aggrieved by the same, it could have preferred an appeal. It has not challenged the order of the learned Single Judge. In view of the same, we are of the view the order passed in W.P.13078/2002 has become final and conclusive.
When the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition as become conclusive, the question is, "Whether the appellant therein can file an appeal again before the Assistant Commissioner?"
When a writ petition is filed, when the same has become final, without the leave of the Court the appellant could not have filed an appeal. Normally writ would be preferred by a party when there is no other alternative and efficacious remedy available. The appellant having availed the remedy of writ jurisdiction, having lost the same, the appellant could not have reagitated the matter afresh by invoking Section 49 of the Land revenue Act. Therefore, we do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.