NAGESH DATTA SHETTI AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1065 · Decided: 02-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
NAGESH DATTA SHETTI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
:.-
Appellate Court-Appeal-Scope of-Writ appeal against direction of 
Single Judge remanding the matter to Land Tribunal with the direction to 
grant occupancy rights to respondents-Tribunal granting occupancy rights c 
as directed-Writ appeal dismissed as infructuous with the observation that 
Tribunal's order can be questioned before Single Judge-Held, the basic 
issue was whether the direction given by Single Judge could be maintained 
when matter was being remitted for adjudication by Tribunal-Division Bench 
had admitted appeal to examine legality of such direction-It should have 
considered the matter on merits-Matter remitted to High Court for decision D 
of writ appeal on merits. 
Practice and Procedure: 
Stay of proceedings-Single Judge of High Court remanding matter to 
Tribunal-Order challenged in writ appeal-No interim relief prayed-Tribunal E 
deciding the case-Held, in given cases court/forum to which matter is remitted 
can await decision in appeal where directions given are impugned. 
In a writ petition arising out of an order of the Land Tribunal, the 
Single Judge of the High Court, while remanding the matter to the Land 
~ 
Tribunal directed it to grant occupancy rights in favour of the respondents. F 
Appellants filed a writ appeal challenging the said order but did not file 
any application for stay of the proceedings before the Tribunal, which 
granted occupancy rights in line with the directions given by the Single 
Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal. 
In the appeal before the Supreme Court, it was contended for the G 
appellants that in view of the fact that the Single Judge had already 
... 
directed occupancy rights to be granted to the respondents, the Division 
Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the decision of the Tribunal 
could be assailed before the Single Judge. 
1065 
H 
1066 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to the Division 
Bench of the High Court, the Court 
HELD: The Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in 
holding that the writ appeal had been rendered infructuous because of 
the subsequent decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal acted only on the 
B basis of the direction given and on that ground alone granted occupancy 
rights. The High Court had admitted the writ appeal to examine legality 
of such direction. The basic issue was whether the direction given by Single 
Judge could be maintained, when the matter was being remitted by Single 
Judge to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Any decision taken by the 
C Tribunal has to be per force sub.iect to the decision in the writ appeal. 
Therefore, the Division Bench should have considered the matter on merits 
without concluding that the writ appeal had become infructuous. 
(1067-G-H; 1068-C-D[ 
2. The High Court had admitted the writ appeal to examine legality 
D of the direction given by Single Judge. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not 
' . 
keep the proceedings pending though it was brought to its notice that the 
..\ 
E 
writ appeal had been admitted. Appellants have also contributed to the 
confusion to a great measure by not seeking stay of direction. In given cases 
the court/forum to which the matter is remitted can await decision in the 
appeal where the directions given are impugned. (1067-H; 1068-A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 853 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2002 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A. No. 8208 of 1999. 
F 
Radhakrishna S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash Tyagi, Ms. Savitri Pandey 
and P.P. Singh for the Appellants. 
Brij Bhusan, Sanjay R. Hegde, Krishnanand Pandeya for the 
Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of a Division Bench of the 
Karnataka High Court refusing to interfere with the order passed by learned 
H Single Judge in view of the fact that the Ankola Taluk Land Tribunal (in 
N.D. SHETTI v. STATE (PASAYAT. J.) 
1067 
short the 'Tribunal') had disposed of the matter pursuant to the direction A 
given by learned Single Judge. 
The appellants had filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench of 
the Karnataka High Court aggrieved primarily by that part of the order of 
learned Single Judge who had remanded t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.