Dabadi Hire Bhimappa and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - articles 226 and 227 - order passed without hearing the parties by the land tribunal cannot be sustained, even though they had not appeared before the tribunal, after the service of notices on them personally. - order 23 rule 3: [b.s. patil, j] compromise of suit - satisfaction of the court - denial of compromise by a party to the suit - procedure required to be followed by the court -held, as per rule 3 of order 23 when it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by both the parties, the court has to record such agreement or compromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith. proviso to rule 3 of order 23 cpc states that if the alleged compromise is..........the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned government pleader for r1 to r3 and the learned counsel for r4 to r17. 2. in this petition, the order passed by the land tribunal, sirguppa, in no. kom/bhusu/24/74-75 on 15.4.94 holding that the petitioners had 30.09 acres of 'd' class land in excess of the ceiling limit. 3. it is seen from the impugned order that it has been passed without hearing the petitioners. the order states that the petitioners were absent on the date of hearing. 4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the notices were not served on them. it is contended by the learned government pleader and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that in fact notices were served on the petitioners and they remained absent. the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

M.B. Vishwanath, J.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for R1 to R3 and the Learned Counsel for R4 to R17.

2. In this petition, the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Sirguppa, in No. KOM/BHUSU/24/74-75 on 15.4.94 holding that the petitioners had 30.09 acres of 'D' class land in excess of the ceiling limit.

3. It is seen from the impugned order that it has been passed without hearing the petitioners. The order states that the petitioners were absent on the date of hearing.

4. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the notices were not served on them. It is contended by the Learned Government Pleader and the Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents that in fact notices were served on the petitioners and they remained absent. The question of delay is not involved in this case.

5. Suffice it to say that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. Lord Hewart has observed:

'It.....is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.' R.V. Sussex Justices, (1924)1 K.B. 256 at 259

6. Since the petitioners have not been heard, the impugned order is quashed. The consequential order as per Annexure-D dated 30.6.95 is also quashed. The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to issue fresh notices to alt the concerned parties including Respondents-4 to 17 and then proceed to dispose the matter according to law, if necessary by recording the evidence and also bearing in mind the order of remand passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11367/82.

7. So far as possession is concerned the parties are directed to maintain Status quo as on today.

Petition allowed and the matter remanded.