V. L. PATIL versus ARJUN HALAPPA NAIKAWAD! AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 345 · Decided: 07-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-l 
V.L. PATIL 
v. 
ARJUN HALAPPA NAIKAWAD! AND ORS. 
AUGUST 7, 1996 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Judicial stricu1res-£xpunction of 
Stlictures passed by High Court against appellant as all individual 
litigant and also as a Minister at that poillt of time and alleged to have 
influenced the decisioll making of the Land T1ibwzal-He/d, there is no 
evidence, direct or circ1a11sta11tial to sustain the ren1arks passed by the High 
Cowt against the appellant as a Millister-17ie remarks which reflect the 
conduct of the appellant as a Minister are expunged from the Judgments at 
A 
B 
c 
all places wherever figuring-But the remarks collfined to his collduct as all 
individual litigant shall sustain-Expzmction of remarks cannot be sought by D 
a litigant if those were legitimately made from the conclusions and i11fere1lces 
dra1vn by a court. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 502-503 
of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.87 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A. Nos. 1996 and 2456 of 1986. 
Dr. AM. Singhvi, Ms. Kiran Suri for the Appellanl,. 
E 
K.H. Nobin Singh and M. Veerappa for the Respondent Nos. 8, 9 F 
and 15. 
P. Mahale for the Respondent No.1. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant, the aggrieved party in these two appeals, was granted 
special leave limited to the question as to whether the learned Single Judge 
of the High Court was justified in passing strictures against the appellant. 
On merit of the matter, the fate of the cases stands sealed. 
G 
The reference to the appellant in the Judgment of the learned Single H 
345 
346 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Judge is in two capacities: (i) as a party-respondent connected with the 
merits of the matter; and (ii) his brooding presence as a Minister of the 
time to have influenced the decision-making of the Land Tribunal, it being 
a land reforms matter. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 4 of his 
judgment observed as follows : 
B 
c 
"But, in this case it appears to me that the regular procedure 
prescribed by the Land Reforms Act for conferring occupancy 
rights on the tenants who were in occupation of the lands imme-
diately prior to 1.8.1974 had been abused by the Chairman and the 
members of the Tribunal to cause wilful loss to the petitioners and 
they did not have the courage of their convictions to stalld up to 
the machinatiolls of respondent-3 (the appellant hereil!) who was 
admittedly a Minister of the State Govemme1Jt at the relevallt time." 
(emphasis supplied). 
On appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court at the instance 
D of the appellant, the Division Bench in para 31 of its judgment observed 
as follows : 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"As earlier observed, we do not find any direct evidence to hold 
that the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal at the behest 
of the appellant who exercised his influence on them. But the facts 
and circumstances of the ease leave no manner of doubt that after 
the passing of a decree in the partition suit; a determined effort 
which was within the knowledge of the appellant, was made to 
defeat the claim of Naikwadi family, which in our view was wholiy 
unjustified.'
1 
The Bench further observed in paragraph 37 as follows : 
"Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, one question still 
remains to be answered i.e., whether respondent - 3 (appellant) 
exerted his extra constitutional power and influence on the mem-
bers of the Tribunal who yielded to such influence. On this aspect, 
it was very fairly conceded by Mr. Bannurmath, learned counsel 
for the writ petitioners, that there was no evidence to prove any 
direct link between the appellant and members of the Tribunal. 
Even we, after going through all the relevant evidence find that 
there is no positive direct evidence to prove the exercising of the. 
-
.. 
V.L PATIL v. ARJUN HALAPPA NAIKA WADI 
347 
extra constitutional power and influence on the Members of the A 
Tribunal. That being so, the next question that arises for considera-
tion whether there is any circumstantial evidence on the basis of 
which such an inference can be drawn. In our view on the facts 
and circumstances of this case, it would be too much stretching to 
hold that to procure the impugned order such an influence was B 
exerted by the appellant (respondent-3) himself. The facts of the 
case do reveal the revival of interest of respondent-3 in the land 
in dispute and the determined effort of Smt. Aruna D

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