TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A. Nos. 1708, 1705, 1707, 1709 of 2006 filed by the appellant herein, WA No 1738 of 2006 filed by one Sr. Basanth Kumar Patil and allowed WA No. 206 of 2007 filed by one Sri. Andappa, the first respondent herein. The Civil Appeal No. 3656 of 2018 is filed against the order in IA No. 2 of 2007 in WA No. 2 06 of 2007 whereunder the High Court condoned the delay of 1378 days in filing the said writ appeal and despite allowing the impleadment of the appellant herein as respondent No. 5 in the said writ appeal and reserving it for pronouncement of judgment without providing the appellant an opportunity to oppose the appeal on merits. The contention of the appellant herein is that it is the condonation of the inordinate delay on 1378 days in filing the said appeal that convoluted the matters and ultimately created a situation calling for resolution in the cases involved in the other bunch of six appeals. We will deal with the said contention appropriately a little later. 2. The appellant herein is a 100% owned subsidiary of Maxim Integrated Products, USA, which claims to be the owner of property comprised in Survey No. 1/3 (previously Sy. No. 4 9/43-A) admeasuring 46995 square feet, her....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent No. 1-Andappa. The Asst. Commissioner allowed the appeal of Sh. Basant Kumar Patil and set aside the order of the Tehsildar and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar for fresh inquiry. On such remand the Tehsildar considered the same and again rejected the application for mutation filed by the said Basant Kumar Patil. Again, he filed an appeal before the Asst. Commissioner and the order of the Tehsildar was again set aside and a direction for effecting mutation in favour of Sh. Basant Kumar Patil was issued by the Asst. Commissioner. Respondent No. 1-Andappa filed Writ Petition No. 36236 of 1995 before the High Court. The same was allowed by the High Court as per the judgment dated 10.02.1999 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Considering the matter afresh pursuant to the order of remand, the Asst. Commissioner issued a direction for mutation of the said property in favour of Sh. Basant Kumar Patil. The first respondent preferred a Revision Petition against that order of the Asst. Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner who set aside the order of the Asst. Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved Sh. Basant Kumar Patil preferred a Writ Petition Nos. 26717, 268....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5730/2006 was also filed against the same order of the land Tribunal. Those Writ Petitions were disposed of by Ld. Single Judge of the High Court as per common order dated 07.09.2006 and quashed the order of the land Tribunal dated 07.02.2006 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The sole ground upon which the Ld. Single Judge quashed the order of the Tribunal and passed such direction for fresh consideration was non-issuance of notice to Sh. Basant Kumar Patil. Contending that the order dated 07.09.2006 came to be passed because of the failure to appreciate the fact that remanding the matter would result in permitting the Tribunal to review its own order which had attained finality as early as in the year 1981, the appellant filed Writ Appeal Nos. 1708, 1705, 1707 and 1709, of 2006. The vendor of the appellant Sh. Basant Kumar Patil also preferred an appeal being Writ Appeal No. 1738 of 2006 against the said order dated 07.09.2006. 6. Meanwhile, respondent No. 1-Andappa filed a Writ Appeal No. 206/2007 against the order dated 25.03.2003 in WP No. 26717/2002 whereunder, the Learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in an appeal filed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in RA(S) No. 104/2003-04. The appeal was dismissed as per order dated 04.12.2003. It is the further submission of the appellant that first respondent was a party to case No. RRT(I) Dispute which was considered by the special Tehsildar pursuant to the direction of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petitions dated 25.03.2002. A perusal of order dated 05.09.2003 passed by the special Tehsildar would reveal that, taking into account the request for adjournment of that application by the advocate for the respondent therein viz., the first respondent herein-Andappa on the ground that LR No. 835/74-75 is still pending before the Land Tribunal, it was adjourned from time to time. However, upon the failure of the respondent to produce any document showing the pendency the special Tehsildar listed the matter for orders to 05.09.2003. It was observed thereafter that thus: - "An endorsement to the effect that it is not Inam land was issued earlier i.e., on 09.08.95 by this office. In that endorsement it was clarified that the land in question is not any Inam land or is not matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6717/2002 and connected matters. We have no hesitation to hold that the said contention is liable to be repelled at the threshold. There can be no doubt that a 'fact being in consequential' and 'nondisclosure of the said fact' are different and distinct. The said submission itself would reveal the fact that respondent No. 1 did not disclose the said fact which was very crucial while filing an appeal against the order dated 25.03.2003 with an application to condone the inordinate delay of 1378 days. The respondent No. 1 cannot feign ignorance about such orders as he was a party to the order of the Tehsildar passed in compliance with the direction in the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 25.03.2003 and further on account of the fact that it was he who preferred an appeal against the said order of the special Tehsildar before the Asst. Commissioner. That apart, even after suffering such an adverse order he had not chosen to challenge the same and allowed that to become final. 11. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 38; 2010 INSC 763, wherein this Court held that if a litigant did n....