R. Ananda Gowda vs The Secretary

B. Manohar, J.—Petitioners are the appellants in R.A. Nos. 44-47/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, being aggrieved by the order dated 14-12-2012, filed these writ petitions.

In the writ petitions, the petitioners have contended that they were in unauthorized occupation of various extent of lands in Sy. No. 36 of Bommavara village, Devanahalli Taluk over last 15 years. They are the agriculturists cultivating the said lands. They had raised Eucalyptus trees in the said land. In view of insertion of Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 which provides for regularization of unauthorized occupation, they had filed applications in Form No. 63 for regularization of the unauthorized occupation. However the said application was not disposed of by the Competent Authority. The Record of Rights from the year 1993-94 to 2001-02 stands in the name of the petitioners. However, the respondent tried to dispossess the petitioners by cutting and removing Eucalyptus trees standing on the said lands. In view of that the petitioners filed O.S. No. 433-436/2005 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further, they also filed I.A. No. I under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, by its order dated 23rd September 2006 granted an interim order directing both the parties to maintain status quo for a period of six months and further directed both the parties not to cut and remove the standing eucalyptus trees without permission of the Court. The defendant filed written statement denying the entire averments in the suit and contended that land bearing Sy. No. 36 of Bommavara village, in all measuring 87.14 acres is a Gomal land, out of which, 9 acres of land was granted to 4 persons, 50 acres of land was classified as forest and the Forest Department has grown Eucalyptus trees and remaining 28.14 acres of land belongs to the defendant-Grama Panchayat. The suit schedule property is situated within the city limits and the said land cannot be regularized under the Land Revenue Act and sought for dismissal of the suit.

The Trial Court, after considering the matter in detail and after recording the evidence of the parties by its judgment and decree dated 01-10-2012 dismissed all the suits filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court preferred R.A. Nos. 44-47/2012 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Devanahalli. They also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for temporary injunction. The matter was being adjourned at the instance of the defendant. However, efforts were being made by the respondent to cut and remove the Eucalyptus trees standing on the suit schedule property. On 14-12-2012, the petitioners had pressed for an interim order on the applications filed by them or to continue the status quo order granted by the Trial Court. However, the Lower Appellate Court without considering the prayer of the petitioners adjourned the matter to 5-1-2013 on the ground that the court has no time to go through the file and pass orders in view of the ensuing Winter Vacation. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14-12-2012, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

Sri. H.N. Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the Trial Court adjourning the matter beyond winter vacation without considering the prayer of the petitioners though the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that the respondent is likely to cut and remove the Eucalyptus trees is contrary to law. The Lower Appellate Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. If the respondent removes the Eucalyptus trees, the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss of injury and sought for allowing the writ petitions setting aside the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court.

Though the respondent is served, they remained unrepresented.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned and other relevant records.

This Trial Court while issuing notice to the respondent granted interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo. The said order is continued as on today. When the petitioners preferred appeals against the order passed by the Trial Court and applications seeking for necessary interim order, the Appellate Court ought to have considered the said applications and pass some orders either granting or rejecting the interim order. Admittedly, the appeals were filed on 18-10-2012, the respondent entered appearance on 19-10-2012 itself. Nothing prevented the Appellate Court to consider the applications filed by the petitioners seeking for interim order. The Court cannot adjourn the matter beyond vacation leaving the parties in lurch, when they had expressed their apprehension of cutting and removing of standing Eucalyptus trees by the respondent. Be that as it may, this Court while issuing notice granted an order of status quo on 18-12-2012, the said interim order is continued till today. The respondent has not filed any application to vacate the said interim order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to direct the Lower Appellate Court to dispose of the appeals. Pending disposal of the said appeals, the interim order granted by this Court to continue till then.

With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed off directing the Lower Appellate Court to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.