C.S. Umesh vs T.V. Gangaraju

2025 INSC 298 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.14513-14514 of 2020)

C.S. UMESH APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

T.V. GANGARAJU & OTHERS RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.09.2019 passed

by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal

No.683/2018 as well as the order passed in Review Petition

No.535/2019 arising out of Writ Appeal No.683/2018 dated

04.03.2020, these appeals have been filed by the persons who

claimed to be the tenants and who had filed Form No.7 before

the concerned Land Tribunal.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are the appellant’s father

Siddaveerappa was stated to be in possession of land measuring

Signature Not Verified 23 Acres and 20 guntas in a certain survey number in Tavarekere Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.01 15:15:17 IST village, Magadi Taluk as a tenant. He filed an application Reason: Page 1 of 10 before the Land Tribunal (for short “Land Tribunal”), Magadi

Taluk (now in Bangalore South Taluk) seeking grant of occupancy

rights under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

(‘1961 Act’ for short) in respect of Survey No. 150 and 151

measuring 9 acres and 14 acres 20 guntas respectively. By an

order dated 11.04.1981, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights

in favour of the appellant’s father. Pursuant to the said order

dated 11.04.1981, the Secretary of the Tribunal issued Form No.

10 being certificate of registration of tenancy. Consequently,

the appellant’s father was cultivating the said land in

question and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

land.

However, in the year 2004, the appellant made an

application before the Tribunal seeking rectification/

modification of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated

11.04.1981 for correcting the extent of land and survey number

in respect of occupancy granted received by the appellant’s

father by order dated 11.04.1981. By order dated 04.09.2004,

the Tribunal dismissed the said question on the ground that it

does not have the power to modify its own orders. Being

aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by way of

filing Writ Petition No. 45408 of 2004 challenging the order

passed by the Tribunal dated 04.09.2004. By an order dated

02.09.2005, the High Court quashed the order passed by the

Page 2 of 10 Tribunal dated 04.09.2004 and remanded the matter to the

Tribunal.

4. The High Court set aside the endorsement dated 04.09.2004

passed by the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the

Land Tribunal for a fresh disposal in accordance with law and

in light of the observations made in the said order and after

due notice to all parties. Pursuant to the remand, the Land

Tribunal passed order dated 12.10.2007 by which the prayers

sought for by the appellant herein was granted.

Pursuant to the said remand, the Tribunal by order dated

12.10.2007 allowed the application filed by the appellant to

correct the extent of land and survey number and modified its

earlier order dated 11.04.1981. Consequently, the competent

authority issued a Certificate in favour of the appellant in

respect of Sy No. 151 measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas and

Sy.No. 153/1 measuring 21 acres situated at Tavarekere Village.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondents herein preferred W.P.No.

1331 of 2008 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dated

12.10.2007. By the order dated 25.02.2013, the learned Single

Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ petition.

‘Paragraph 6’ of the said order is of crucial importance and

the same reads as under:

Page 3 of 10

“6. It is made clear that in respect of Sy.No.153 respondent applicant is not entitled since grant was not granted in respect of Sy.No.153. What is modified is only in respect of 153/1 which is to be read as Sy.No.150 and 151. In terms of the above the petition is disposed off.”

6. Thereafter, in the year 2016, the appellant seems to have

made an oral mention before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.

1331 of 2008 seeking for rectififcation/correction of the above

order dated 25.02.2013. The learned Single Judge by way of “for

being spoken to” passed a corrected order dated 19.01.2016. By

way of the corrected order, the learned Single Judge has added

a sentence in paragraph 6 of the order dated 25.02.2013. The

modified paragraph 6 read thus:

“6. It is made clear that in respect of Sy.No.153 respondent applicant is not entitled since grant was not granted in respect of Sy.No.153. What is modified is only in respect of 153/1 which is to be read as Sy.No.150 and 151. In terms of the above the petition is disposed off. The order of the Land Tribunal dt.12.10.07 confirmed.”

7. On coming to know of the above addition and being

aggrieved by the addition of the last sentence in the corrected

order dated 19.01.2016, the respondents herein preferred writ

appeal by way of filing W.A. 683 of 2018. It was their case

that the said modification of ‘paragraph 6’ by the learned

Single Judge was not in accordance with law inasmuch as the

respondent(s) herein had no opportunity to contest the said

addition and therefore, the Writ Appeal was filed by them. By

Page 4 of 10 the impugned order dated 11.09.2019, the Division Bench

disposed of the writ appeal clarifying the corrected order of

the learned Single Judge dated 19.01.2016. The Bench observed

that the addition of sentence made by the order dated

19.01.2016 in no way disrupts the modification earlier made by

the learned Single Judge to the order dated 12.10.2007. The

Bench further clarified that the said added sentence means that

subject to the modification made by paragraph 6 of the order

dated 25.02.2013, the order of Tribunal dated 12.10.2007 is

confirmed. Thus, the modification made by paragraph 6 of the

order dated 25.02.2013 by substituting the land in Survey No.

150 in place of land in Survey No. 153/1 stands notwithstanding

the order dated 19.01.2016.

8. The Division Bench of the High Court heard the parties

and by ‘paragraph 6’ further clarified the order of the Land

Tribunal as well as the order of the learned Single Judge by

way of the following observations:

“6. We have carefully considered the submissions. On a plain reading of the order dated 19th January 2016, we find that what the learned Single Judge intended to say was that subject to the modification made by the order dated 25th February 2013, the order dated 12th October 2007 passed by the Land Tribunal stands confirmed. Therefore, the addition of sentence made by the order dated 19th January 2016 in no way disturbs the modification earlier made by the learned Single Judge to the order dated 12th October 2007. The sentence added by the order dated 19th January 2016 means that subject to the modification made by paragraph 6 of the order dated 25th February 2013, the

Page 5 of 10 order of the Land Tribunal dated 12th October 2007 is confirmed. Thus, the modification made by paragraph 6 of the order dated 25th February 2013 by substituting the land in Survey No.150 in place of the land in Survey No.153/1 stands notwithstanding the order dated 19th January 2016. With this clarification, the appeal is disposed of.’

9. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred a review

petition 535 of 2019 in Writ Appeal No. 683 of 2018 and the

same was dismissed by order dated 04.03.2020. Hence the

appellant has preferred this instant appeal.

Being aggrieved by the clarification made by the Division

Bench of the High Court, these appeals have been filed.

10. We have heard learned senior counsel, Sri S.N. Bhatt for

the appellant and learned Senior Counsel, Sri Shailesh Madiyal

for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and perused the material on record in

detail.

11. At the outset, we wish to observe that it was wholly

improper on the part of the appellant herein to have sought for

modification of ‘paragraph 6’ of the order dated 25.02.2013

passed in W.P. No.1331/2008, three years subsequent to the said

order by way of a “for being spoken to” in the absence of any

application being made or the same having been served on the

respondent(s). This was also without any oral intimation to

the respondents herein. We also think that it was not in

accordance with judicial propriety for the learned Single Judge

Page 6 of 10 to have accepted an oral prayer unilaterally made by the

appellant herein and modified ‘paragraph 6’ of the order dated

25.02.2013 by adding the additional sentence extracted above

vide order dated 19.01.2016 as if it was an innocuous

correction. The said procedure followed was not at all in

accordance with law and in total violation of procedure and

practice as well as in violation of the principles of natural

justice.

12. We take note of the fact that the operative portion of

the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge

is not coherent. However, in such circumstances, the ordinary

legal recourse was to have filed a review of the said order or

to seek clarification. Instead, an oral mention was made before

the learned Single Judge after almost three years and an

additional line was sought to be added to the order dated

25.02.2013 by way of a “for being spoken to” vide order dated

19.01.2016. It was also submitted at the bar that no notice was

served on the respondents herein and the said correction made

by way of a “for being spoken to” in utter violation of

principles of natural justice and procedure established by law.

13. We deplore such practices of making oral mentions for

modification of the orders/judgments in the guise of a review

and the same cannot be permitted circumventing the legal

process of filing a review. This Court in Supertech Limited vs.

Page 7 of 10 Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, (2023) 10 SCC

817, wherein one of us (Nagarathna. J.) was part of the bench,

had observed that the hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is

its stability and finality. Further that judicial verdicts are

not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind

and weather. Therefore, in the present case, the learned Single

Judge ought not to have entertained the oral mentioning of the

appellant herein and made the impugned correction/addition by

way of a “for being spoken to” at the instance of the appellant

unilaterally orally mentioning the matter before the learned

Single Judge.

14. This addition by way of a correction made by the learned

Single Judge vide order dated 19.01.2016 was assailed by the

respondents herein before the Division Bench of the High Court.

No doubt, the Division Bench has sought to clarify what the

import of the Tribunal’s order was and what the learned Single

Judge was trying to say in this order. Subsequently, on the

basis of what was argued before the Division Bench, ‘paragraph

6’ as extracted above was observed by the Division Bench. The

said ‘paragraph 6’ is a subject matter of controversy in these

appeals filed by the appellant herein who had sought for a

correction being made by way of “for being spoken to” three

years after the learned single Judge has disposed of the

matter.

Page 8 of 10

15. We find that the confusion and controversy in these

appeals has arisen solely on account of the procedure adopted

by the appellant herein in seeking a modification of an earlier

order passed by the learned Single Judge in the High Court on

the basis of an oral submission “for being spoken to” being

made three years after the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1331/2008. We deprecate such a

practice adopted by the appellant herein. Consequently, the lis

between the parties has remained inconclusive and more

confounded which has constrained the appellant to file this

appeal.

16. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the

Division Bench of the High Court passed in the W.A.No.683/2018

as well as the order passed in the Review Petition No.535/2019

in W.A.No.683/2018 as well as the order of the learned Single

Judge dated 25.02.2013 in W.P. No.1331/2008 as well as the

corrected order dated 19.01.2016 in W.P.No.1331/2008.

Consequently, W.P. No.1331/2008 is restored on the file of the

High Court.

It is needless to observe that the said Writ Petition

would now be heard in accordance with law and as expeditiously

as possible.

Page 9 of 10 We clarify that we have not made any observations on the

merits of the matter. All contentions on both sides are left

open to be advanced before the learned Single Judge.

These appeals are allowed and disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

Having regard to the course adopted by the appellant in

this case in seeking a modification to the order dated

25.02.2013 passed in W.P. No.1331/2008, we think that the ends

of justice would be met if we allow these appeals with costs of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to be paid by the

appellant to the private respondent Nos.1 to 5.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.

(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . J.

(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 11, 2025

Page 10 of 10