The Supreme Court observed that an order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said.In this case, a notice issued by a land tribunal...
The Supreme Court observed that an order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course.
Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said.
In this case, a notice issued by a land tribunal was quashed by Single bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing a writ petition filed by land owners. The Division bench, set aside the order of Single Judge, and remanded the matter to land tribunal. Therefore, the issue raised was whether the Division Bench was justified in reversing the order of the Single Judge, setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal?
Perusing the records, the bench noted that the Division Bench, without assigning any cogent reasons, has set aside the order of the Single Judge and has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. The court observed:
It is settled law that the order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits. Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal.
The court thus concluded that the Division Bench has remanded the matter without any justification.
Case details
Nadakerappa (D) vs Pillamma (D) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332 | CA 76577658 OF 2017 | 31 March 2022
Coram: Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari
Counsel : Sr. Adv A.N. Venugopal Gowda for appellant, Sr. Adv Vikas Singh and Sr. Adv Kiran Suri for respondents
Headnotes
Remand - An order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits. Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal. (Para 25)
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961- Beneficent legislation for granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants of agricultural lands - In construing the provisions of such enactments, the court should adopt a construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render the protection illusory - Most of the tenants are villagers from remote areas and most of them are illiterate persons and that the Act is a beneficent legislation. This aspect has to be kept in mind while deciding cases under the Act. (Para 23,28)
Click here to Read/Download Judgment