9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the judgment of the Karnataka High Court regarding the grant of occupancy rights by the Tribunal based on the direction of the Single Judge. Judgment Details: The appellants filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, contesting the order of the Single Judge remanding the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to grant occupancy rights to the respondents. The Division Bench admitted the appeal without passing any stay order, leading the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights to the respondents as per the Single Judge's direction. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, held that the appellants could challenge the Tribunal's decision before the Single Judge, despite the occupancy rights being granted in compliance with the Single Judge's direction. The writ appeal was dismissed based on this reasoning. The main issue for adjudication was whether the Single Judge's direction to grant occupancy rights could stand when the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The High Court admitted the writ appeal to examine the legality of this direction. However, the Tribunal did not keep the proceedings pending despite being informed of the writ appeal admission. The appellants also failed to seek a stay of the direction, contributing to the confusion. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in deeming the writ appeal infructuous due to the Tribunal's subsequent decision. The correctness of the Single Judge's order was under challenge in the writ appeal, making any Tribunal decision subject to the appeal outcome. Therefore, the Division Bench should have considered the matter on its merits without prematurely concluding the writ appeal's futility. In light of these circumstances, the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The writ appeal was to be restored to the file and dealt with according to the law, with a request for expedited proceedings. The Supreme Court clarified that no opinion on the case's merits was expressed, and the appeal was disposed of without costs.
|
