Holding

A writ appeal cannot be declared infructuous merely because the remitted tribunal has acted on the Single Judge’s direction; the appeal must be decided on its merits and any tribunal order remains subject to the appellate decision.

Summary

The appellants challenged a direction of a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court who, while remanding a land dispute to the Ankola Taluk Land Tribunal, ordered that occupancy rights be granted to the respondents. No stay was sought, and the Tribunal proceeded to grant the occupancy rights as directed. The appellants filed a writ appeal before a Division Bench, contending that the appeal became moot because the Tribunal had already acted on the Single Judge’s order. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding it infructuous, but the Supreme Court held that the appeal could not be deemed moot and must be decided on its merits, as any tribunal order remains subject to the appellate decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court remitted the writ appeal to the High Court for fresh consideration without expressing any view on the merits.

Issues considered

Whether a writ appeal becomes infructuous when the remitted tribunal acts on the Single Judge’s direction to grant occupancy rights.
Whether the tribunal’s order can be challenged before the Single Judge while the writ appeal is pending.
Whether the High Court should stay proceedings before the tribunal pending the resolution of the writ appeal.

Subjects

occupancy rightswrit appealremandland tribunalstay of proceedingsjurisdictionappellate jurisdictioncivil procedure

Judgment

j
NAGESH DATTA SHETTI AND ORS. A
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 2, 2005

[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B

~ :.-
Appellate Court-Appeal-Scope of-Writ appeal against direction of
Single Judge remanding the matter to Land Tribunal with the direction to
grant occupancy rights to respondents-Tribunal granting occupancy rights
as directed-Writ appeal dismissed as infructuous with the observation that
c
Tribunal's order can be questioned before Single Judge-Held, the basic
issue was whether the direction given by Single Judge could be maintained
when matter was being remitted for adjudication by Tribunal-Division Bench
had admitted appeal to examine legality of such direction-It should have
considered the matter on merits-Matter remitted to High Court for decision D
of writ appeal on merits.

Practice and Procedure:

Stay of proceedings-Single Judge of High Court remanding matter to
Tribunal-Order challenged in writ appeal-No interim reliefprayed-Tribunal E
deciding the case-Held, in given cases court/forum to which matter is remitted
can await decision in appeal where directions given are impugned.

In a writ petition arising out of an order of the Land Tribunal, the
Single Judge of the High Court, while remanding the matter to the Land
~
Tribunal directed it to grant occupancy rights in favour of the respondents. F
Appellants filed a writ appeal challenging the said order but did not file
any application for stay of the proceedings before the Tribunal, which
granted occupancy rights in line with the directions given by the Single
Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal.

In the appeal before the Supreme Court, it was contended for the G
appellants that in view of the fact that the Single Judge had already
... directed occupancy rights to be granted to the respondents, the Division
Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the decision of the Tribunal
could be assailed before the Single Judge.
1065 H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 1 S.C.R.

A Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to the Division
Bench of the High Court, the Court

HELD: The Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in
holding that the writ appeal had been rendered infructuous because of
the subsequent decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal acted only on the
B basis of the direction given and on that ground alone granted occupancy
rights. The High Court had admitted the writ appeal to examine legality
of such direction. The basic issue was whether the direction given by Single
Judge could be maintained, when the matter was being remitted by Single
' .
Judge to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Any decision taken by the
C Tribunal has to be per force sub.iect to the decision in the writ appeal.
Therefore, the Division Bench should have considered the matter on merits
without concluding that the writ appeal had become infructuous.
(1067-G-H; 1068-C-D[

2. The High Court had admitted the writ appeal to examine legality
D of the direction given by Single Judge. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not
keep the proceedings pending though it was brought to its notice that the ..\
writ appeal had been admitted. Appellants have also contributed to the
confusion to a great measure by not seeking stay of direction. In given cases
the court/forum to which the matter is remitted can await decision in the
appeal where the directions given are impugned. (1067-H; 1068-A-B)
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 853 of 2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2002 of the Karnataka High
Court in W.A. No. 8208 of 1999.

F Radhakrishna S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash Tyagi, Ms. Savitri Pandey
and P.P. Singh for the Appellants.

Brij Bhusan, Sanjay R. Hegde, Krishnanand Pandeya for the
Respondents.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of a Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court refusing to interfere with the order passed by learned
H Single Judge in view of the fact that the Ankola Taluk Land Tribunal (in
N.D. SHETTI v. STATE (PASAYAT. J.) 1067
short the 'Tribunal') had disposed of the matter pursuant to the direction A
given by learned Single Judge.

The appellants had filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench of
the Karnataka High Court aggrieved primarily by that part of the order of
learned Single Judge who had remanded the matter to the Tribunal, with a
specific direction to grant occupancy rights in favour of the respondents, who B
were the petitioners in the writ petition. The appeal was admitted but there
was no order of stay passed in the appeal either directing stay of further
proceedings before the Tribunal or staying operation of the order of learned
Single Judge, as no application had been filed for grant of any interim relief.
Jn the absence of any order of stay, pursuant to the directions given by C
learned Single Judge the proceedings came to be heard by the Tribunal which
hold that the respondents were to be granted occupancy rights in line with the
mandate given by learned Single Judge.

By the impugned judgment the High Court came to hold that though
the learned Single Judge had directed grant of occupancy rights and the D
Tribunal had followed the directions, it was open to the present appellants to
question the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal before the learned
Single Judge. Accordingly the writ appeal was dismissed.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the Division Bench was not justified in holding that the order of the E
Tribunal could be assailed before learned Single Judge. In view of the fact
that learned Single Judge had already directed that occupancy rights w~re to
be conferred on the respondents, no relief could be granted to the appellants.
It is pointed out that though the Tribunal was requested to keep the matter
pending in view of the fact that the Writ Appeal had been admitted, the F
Tribunal did not do so.

Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that the view expressed by the High Court
in the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity.
G
As the factual scenario noted above goes to show specific challenge in
the writ appeal was in respect of the direction given by learned Single Judge
to grant occupancy rights to the respondents. That was the basic issue which
was to be adjudicated by the Division Bench in the writ appeal. The basic
issue, as noted above was whether the direction given by learned Single
Judge could be maintained, when the matter was being remitted by learned H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A Single Judge_ to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. In a given case there can
be limited remand and giving finality to an issue. may be permissible. In the
present case the High Court had admitted the writ appeal to examine legality
of such direction. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not keep the proceedings
pending though it was brought to its notice that the Writ Appeal had been
B admitted. Appellants have also contributed to the confusion to a great measure
by not seeking stay of direction. In given cases the Court/Forum to which the
matter is remitted can await decision in the appeal where the directions given
are impugned. A copy of the order passed by the Tribunal pursuant to the
direction given by learned Single Judge has been placed on record. It clearly
. ,

shows that the Tribunal acted only on the basis of the direction given and on
C that ground alone granted occupancy rights.

The High Court was not justified in holding that the writ appeal had
been rendered infructuous because of the subsequent decision of the Tribunal.
Correctness of the order passed by learned Single Judge was being challenged
in the writ appeal. Any decision taken by the Tribunal has to be per force
D subject to the decision in the writ appeal. Therefore, the Division Bench
should have considered the matter on merits without concluding that the writ ...,
appeal had become infructuous.

In the peculiar circumstances we remit the matter to the High Court for
fresh consideration. Writ Appeal No. 8208/I 999 shall be restored to file and
E shall be dealt with in accordance with law. As the matter is pending since
long, High Court is requested to explore the possibility of early disposal of
the Writ Appeal. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
F
R.P. Appeal disposed of.