1984 (1) TMI 352 - HC - Indian Laws

Occupancy-rights claim u/s48-A: can a receiver be sought in writ proceedings? Maintainable, but refused on merits.

In a writ petition under Art. 226 challenging rejection of an occupancy-rights application under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the dominant ... - ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1) Whether an application for appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be maintained in proceedings under Article 226 (and writ appeals), having regard to the Explanation to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the applicable writ proceedings rules. 2) Whether, in a proceeding under Article 226 arising out of an application under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, an interim relief in the nature of appointment of receiver is maintainable by virtue of Section 48-C of the Act. 3) Whether, on the facts pleaded, the case warranted appointment of a receiver, or whether at best only an interim injunction could be justified. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Maintainability of receiver application in Article 226 proceedings (CPC applicability) Legal framework: The Court considered Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its Explanation excluding proceedings under Article 226 from the expression 'proceedings' for purposes of Section 141; and Rule 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 providing that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 'shall apply, as far as may be,' to proceedings under Articles 226/227 and writ appeals where no specific provision is made in the writ rules. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that although the Explanation to Section 141 means the Code of Civil Procedure is not automatically attracted to Article 226 proceedings, Rule 39 specifically makes CPC provisions applicable to such proceedings to the extent stated. Since there was no specific contrary provision in the writ rules on the matter, the CPC provision enabling appointment of a receiver could be invoked 'as far as may be' in writ proceedings. Conclusion: The Court conclusively held that Order XL Rule 1 CPC can be availed of in proceedings under Article 226 (and in writ appeals) by virtue of Rule 39, and the view that such an application is per se not maintainable was incorrect. Issue 2: Maintainability of interim receiver relief in land reforms-related writ proceedings (Section 48-C) Legal framework: The Court examined Section 48-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act which empowers the Tribunal, in proceedings under Section 48-A, to make interim orders including temporary injunction or appointment of a receiver in respect of the land concerned. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that since the Article 226 proceeding arose out of an application under Section 48-A, the nature of interim protection contemplated by Section 48-C (injunction or receiver) was relevant and could be sought in relation to the subject land. This reinforced that an application seeking appointment of a receiver in such a context could not be rejected as non-maintainable. Conclusion: The Court concluded that it was not possible to agree with the view that the receiver application was not maintainable, given the enabling interim-relief power recognized in Section 48-C in relation to Section 48-A matters. Issue 3: Whether a receiver should be appointed on the merits Interpretation and reasoning: On the factual allegations presented, the Court agreed with the assessment that they did not justify the drastic relief of appointing a receiver. The Court accepted the reasoning that, even if interim protection was warranted, the pleadings at best supported an interim injunction rather than appointment of a receiver. Conclusion: The Court upheld rejection of the receiver request on merits, holding that no case was made out for appointment of a receiver; consequently, despite correcting the maintainability view, the appeal was dismissed.