2025 INSC 17 Page 1 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

M/s Maxim India Integrated

Circuit Design (P) Ltd.

…. Appellant(s)

Versus

Andappa (D) By LRs & Ors.

…Respondent(s)

With

Civil Appeal No. 3656 of 2018

J U D G M E N T

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. The above set of six appeals viz., CA Nos.3650-

3655 of 2018 are filed by the self-same appellant viz., M/s

Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd., against

the common judgment and order dated 26.02.2010 in

Writ Appeal Nos. 1708, 1705, 1707, 1709, 1738 of 2006

and 206 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka

at Bangalore. As per the impugned judgment, the High

Page 2 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

Court dismissed W.A. Nos.1708, 1705, 1707, 1709 of 2006

filed by the appellant herein, WA No 1738 of 2006 filed

by one Sr. Basanth Kumar Patil and allowed WA No.206

of 2007 filed by one Sri. Andappa, the first respondent

herein. The Civil Appeal No. 3656 of 2018 is filed against

the order in IA No.2 of 2007 in WA No.206 of 2007

whereunder the High Court condoned the delay of 1378

days in filing the said writ appeal and despite allowing

the impleadment of the appellant herein as respondent

No.5 in the said writ appeal and reserving it for

pronouncement of judgment without providing the

appellant an opportunity to oppose the appeal on merits.

The contention of the appellant herein is that it is the

condonation of the inordinate delay on 1378 days in filing

the said appeal that convoluted the matters and

ultimately created a situation calling for resolution in the

cases involved in the other bunch of six appeals. We will

deal with the said contention appropriately a little later.

2. The appellant herein is a 100% owned subsidiary

of Maxim Integrated Products, USA, which claims to be

the owner of property comprised in Survey No.1/3

(previously Sy.No.49/43-A) admeasuring 46995 square

feet, hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’. It

Page 3 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

forms part of a larger property admeasuring 2 acres, 29

guntas in Sy. No.49/3 of Jakkasandra village.

3. The further case of the appellant is as under:-

Property in Sy. No.49/3 was initially purchased by

Messrs Chinnappa and Munniappa from one Sri.

Munivenkatappa. Upon the death of Sr. Chinappa, his

rights over the property vested in favour of D.

Munniappa and AC Munniappa and other legal heirs.

Messrs Krishnappa, s/o Chinappa (respondent Nos.2

herein) and Sri. Andappa, the first respondent herein

filed a petition, being LRF No.835/74-75 under the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘KLR Act’)

claiming that they were cultivating properties in Sy.

No.49/43 admeasuring 2 acres, 19 guntas along with Sy.

No.49/20 admeasuring 20 guntas and in Sy.No.49/17

admeasuring 18 guntas. Tenancy Petition bearing LRF

No.1114/74-75 was filed by Kirishna s/o Mundappa s/o

Muddanna and Mr. Andappa @ Andi, s/o Muddanna

claiming that they were cultivating lands in Sy. Nos.48,

49 and 56 as distinct and different from Sy. Nos.49/3 and

50/2. As per the order dated 10.07.1981, the Land

Tribunal dismissed the tenancy petition LRF No.835/74-

75, filed by Krishanappa and Andappa, and the said

Page 4 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

order in LRF No.835/74-75 had attained finality.

Meanwhile, D. Munniappa and AC Munniappa along with

the other legal heirs of Chinnappa, mortgaged their land

comprised in Sy. Nos.49/43 and Sy. No.50/21 in favour of

the Mysore State Financial Corporation to one Mr. ND

Mani in order to repay the loan availed from the Mysore

State Financial Corporation. Later, some disputes arose

between the aforesaid D. Munniappa and AC

Munniappa, but then, it was compromised and pursuant

to the compromise decree dated 03.03.1989 in OS

No.1491/1983 it was agreed that the property bearing

Survey Nos.49/43 and 50/21 of Jakkasandra village will

be sold to Sh. N.D. Mani for consideration of Rs.1 lakh.

Thereafter, the legal heirs of Sh. D. Munniappa and A.C.

Munniappa sold the aforesaid property to one Sh. Basant

Kumar Patil who was the nominee of Sh. N.D. Mani. Later,

Sh. Basant Kumar Patil applied for mutation of Khata in his

name, but the Tehsildar rejected the application in

respect of Survey No.49/43A being aggrieved by the

said order Sh. Basant Kumar Patil filed an appeal before

the Asst. Commissioner and the same was objected by

the respondent No.1-Andappa. The Asst. Commissioner

allowed the appeal of Sh. Basant Kumar Patil and set

aside the order of the Tehsildar and remanded the

Page 5 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

matter back to the Tehsildar for fresh inquiry. On such

remand the Tehsildar considered the same and again

rejected the application for mutation filed by the said

Basant Kumar Patil. Again, he filed an appeal before the

Asst. Commissioner and the order of the Tehsildar was

again set aside and a direction for effecting mutation in

favour of Sh. Basant Kumar Patil was issued by the Asst.

Commissioner. Respondent No.1-Andappa filed Writ

Petition No.36236 of 1995 before the High Court. The

same was allowed by the High Court as per the judgment

dated 10.02.1999 and the matter was remanded for fresh

consideration. Considering the matter afresh pursuant

to the order of remand, the Asst. Commissioner issued a

direction for mutation of the said property in favour of Sh.

Basant Kumar Patil. The first respondent preferred a

Revision Petition against that order of the Asst.

Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner who set

aside the order of the Asst. Commissioner. Feeling

aggrieved Sh. Basant Kumar Patil preferred a Writ

Petition Nos.26717, 26808 and 26809 of 2002 before the

High Court of Karnataka. As per the judgment dated

25.03.2003 the High Court allowed the Writ Petition

holding that claim of respondent No.1 was a subject

matter of Tenancy Petition No. LRF 835/74-75. The High

Page 6 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

Court also observed that the proceedings in respect of

LRF 835/74-75 was decided a long back and therefore,

the Deputy Commissioner had erred it ignoring the

entire facts of the case and directing to enter the name of

respondent No.1-Andappa in the mutation register.

Subsequent to the said order dated 25.03.2003, the

Tehsildar directed for entering the name of Sh. Basant

Kumar Patil in the records. On 15.09.2004, the petitioner

purchased the suit property from the said Basant Kumar

Patil.

4. After the purchase of the suit property by the

appellant, the first respondent-Andappa filed a suit

against the appellant seeking permanent injunction

restraining the appellant for dispossessing him and his

son from the suit schedule property. Pursuant to the

order dated 16.02.2006 whereunder an order to maintain

the status quo was passed, the appellant preferred an

appeal before the High Court. As per the judgment

dated 28.07.2008 the same was allowed and the interim

order dated 16.02.2006 was set aside. Meanwhile,

knowing about the pendency of LRF No.1114/74 -75

before the Tribunal the appellant appeared before the

Tribunal, and appraised that LRF No.835/74-75 stood

Page 7 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

dismissed on 10.07.1981. That apart it was informed that

land in survey No.49/43A was not at all a subject matter

in LRF No.1114/74-75 and to afford opportunity to the

appellant in case the said proceeding in respect of land

in survey No.49/43A is proceeded with. Based on an oral

observation made by the Tribunal, the appellant filed an

application to get itself impleaded as a respondent in the

said proceedings. However, as per the order dated

07.02.2006 the Tribunal rejected the impleadment

application and then allowed the claim of respondent

No.2 and his father.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2006, the

appellant herein filed a Writ Petition No.4525/2006. The

vendor of the petitioner namely, Sh. Basant Kumar Patil,

also filed WP No.6170/2006 against the very same order

passed by the land Tribunal. Two other vendees of

Basant Kumar Patil preferred WP No.5639/2006 against

the order dated 07.02.2006 of the land Tribunal. Another

Writ Petition viz., WP No.5730/2006 was also filed against

the same order of the land Tribunal. Those Writ Petitions

were disposed of by Ld. Single Judge of the High Court

as per common order dated 07.09.2006 and quashed the

order of the land Tribunal dated 07.02.2006 and

remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh

Page 8 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

consideration. The sole ground upon which the Ld.

Single Judge quashed the order of the Tribunal and

passed such direction for fresh consideration was non-

issuance of notice to Sh. Basant Kumar Patil. Contending

that the order dated 07.09.2006 came to be passed

because of the failure to appreciate the fact that

remanding the matter would result in permitting the

Tribunal to review its own order which had attained

finality as early as in the year 1981, the appellant filed

Writ Appeal Nos.1708, 1705, 1707 and 1709, of 2006. The

vendor of the appellant Sh. Basant Kumar Patil also

preferred an appeal being Writ Appeal No.1738 of 2006

against the said order dated 07.09.2006.

6. Meanwhile, respondent No.1-Andappa filed a Writ

Appeal No.206/2007 against the order dated 25.03.2003

in WP No.26717/2002 whereunder, the Learned Single

Judge quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner

directing for entering the name of respondent No.1 in the

mutation register. As noticed hereinbefore, the Learned

Single Judge set aside the order of the Deputy

Commissioner observing and holding that the

proceedings in respect of LRF No.835/74 -75 was

decided long back and attained finality. The appellant

filed an application for impleadment in Writ Appeal

Page 9 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

No.206/2007, as mentioned earlier contending that in the

proceedings under challenge therein the appellant was

not a party as the challenge thereunder pertained to

order dated 25.03.2003 and at the same time the

appellant purchased the suit schedule property only on

15.09.2004. As noticed hereinbefore the application for

impleadment of the petitioner was allowed and at the

same time the appellant was not provided with an

opportunity to oppose the appeal on merits. In the

application for impleadment itself it was contended that

the order sought to be impugned in Writ Appeal

No.206/2007 had attained finality. As noticed

hereinbefore Writ Appeal No.206/2007 was taken on file

by the High Court after condoning the delay of 1378 days

in filing the said appeal as per order in IA No.2/2007 filed

therein. The captioned appeals have been filed in the

said circumstances against the impugned common

judgment dated 26.02.2010 in the aforementioned Writ

Appeals.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties in the Appeals.

8. The appellant would contend that the common

judgment dated 26.02.2010 came to be passed in the

manner mentioned therein due to the non-appreciation

Page 10 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

of the position that LRF No.835/74-75 had attained finality

and was not pending when the Deputy Commissioner

passed the order whereunder the order of the Asst.

Commissioner directing mutation of the property in

favour of Sh. Basant Kumar Patil, the vendor of the

appellant was set aside. In short, it is the contention that

the rightful conclusion and consequential orders passed

by the learned single judge in the Writ Petition

Nos.26717, 26808, and 26809, of 2002 on 25.03.2003 had

not only attained finality but also it was worked out in as

much as consequential orders and steps were taken

based on the same. Based on the direction in the said

writ petitions dated 25.03.2003 the special Tehsildar

passed Annexure P-11 dated 05.09.2003 and the and the

same was unsuccessfully challenged by the first

respondent-Andappa before the Asst. Commissioner in

an appeal filed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, 1964 in RA(S) No.104/2003-04. The

appeal was dismissed as per order dated 04.12.2003. It

is the further submission of the appellant that first

respondent was a party to case No. RRT(I) Dispute which

was considered by the special Tehsildar pursuant to the

direction of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge in

the aforementioned writ petitions dated 25.03.2002. A

Page 11 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

perusal of order dated 05.09.2003 passed by the special

Tehsildar would reveal that, taking into account the

request for adjournment of that application by the

advocate for the respondent therein viz., the first

respondent herein-Andappa on the ground that LR

No.835/74-75 is still pending before the Land Tribunal, it

was adjourned from time to time. However, upon the

failure of the respondent to produce any document

showing the pendency the special Tehsildar listed the

matter for orders to 05.09.2003. It was observed

thereafter that thus:-

“An endorsement to the effect that it is not Inam

land was issued earlier i.e., on 09.08.95 by this office. In

that endorsement it was clarified that the land in question

is not any Inam land or is not matter of litigation in any

Civil Court”, and then the special Tehsildar went on to

pass the final order thus:-

“AS THE name of the Petitioner is in Current RTC

in respect of land Survey No.49:43Am 2 Acre 34

Guntas in Survey No.49:43A 0-10 Guntas, in

Survey Nos.49:42, 0-34 Guntas, 21 Guntas in

Survey No.50:21., it is therefore ordered that

Status quo ante may be continued.”

Page 12 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

9. In fact, feeling aggrieved by the same the

respondent No.1 herein filed an appeal as RA(S)

104/2003-04 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964. After considering the contentions of

the respondent No.1 and also Sh. Basant Kumar Patil the

Asst. Commissioner found the appeal of respondent No.1

devoid of merit and consequently dismissed the same

and confirmed the order dated 05.09.2003 of the special

Tehsildar. It is subsequent to the same that the appellant

purchased the property from Sh. Basant Kumar Patil as

per sale deed dated 15.09.2004. These factual aspects

are indisputable in view of the materials on record.

10. We have earlier observed the contention of the

appellant that the failure to take into account the fact that

pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge dated

25.03.2003 in WP No.26717/2002 and connected matters

consequential orders were passed by the special

Tehsildar at Annexure P-11 and the same was confirmed

in an appeal at the instance of respondent No.1-Andappa

as per Annexure P-12 that the application to condone the

delay of 1378 days filed in Writ Appeal No.206/2007 was

passed and it convoluted the matters unnecessarily,

would be considered later. The facts discussed in detail

revealed from materials on record would justify the

Page 13 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

submission made by the learned counsel for the

appellant as above. It is also the contention of the

appellant that the respondent No.1 who suffered such

orders of the authorities based on his action to allow the

order dated 25.03.2003 in WP No.26717/2002 and

connected matters to become final and thereby giving a

quietus to the issues did not disclose the factum of

passing such consequential orders either in the Writ

Appeal or in the application filed for condoning the

delay. The contention of the learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.1 is that the non-disclosure of the

aforesaid aspects are inconsequential in view of the

pendency of an appeal filed against the judgment dated

25.03.2003 in WP No.26717/2002 and connected matters.

We have no hesitation to hold that the said contention is

liable to be repelled at the threshold. There can be no

doubt that a ‘fact being in consequential’ and ‘non-

disclosure of the said fact’ are different and distinct. The

said submission itself would reveal the fact that

respondent No.1 did not disclose the said fact which was

very crucial while filing an appeal against the order

dated 25.03.2003 with an application to condone the

inordinate delay of 1378 days. The respondent No.1

cannot feign ignorance about such orders as he was a

Page 14 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

party to the order of the Tehsildar passed in compliance

with the direction in the order of the Learned Single

Judge dated 25.03.2003 and further on account of the fact

that it was he who preferred an appeal against the said

order of the special Tehsildar before the Asst.

Commissioner. That apart, even after suffering such an

adverse order he had not chosen to challenge the same

and allowed that to become final.

11. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to a

decision of this Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of

India

1

, wherein this Court held that if a litigant did not

come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to

be heard and indeed such a person is not entitled to any

relief from any judicial forum.

12. That apart on a careful scrutiny of the materials on

record we found certain alarming situation revealing the

attempt of manipulation made by the first respondent.

13. The judgment under challenged in Writ Appeal

No.206/2007 viz., Annexure P-10 dated 25.03.2003 in WP

No.26717/2002 and connected matters would reveal that

when the matter was earlier remanded to the Tehsildar

pursuant to the order of the Asst. Commissioner the first

1

(2010) 14 SCC 38; 2010 INSC 763

Page 15 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

respondent contended that his claim in regard to survey

No.49/43 on the ground that it is an inam land and his

application for grant of occupancy rights before the Land

Reforms Tribunal is pending for consideration. The

Learned Single Judge found that such a submission was

made with reference to application in LRF No.835/74-75

it is on a careful consideration of the said submissions

that it was found by the Learned Single Judge that the

said submission was absolutely untenable and devoid of

any merit. The learned Single Judge found that the very

basis of the contention of respondent No.1 is an order

passed by the Bangalore South Taluk Land Reforms

Tribunal in LRF 1114/74-75 wherein Messrs Krishnappa

and Gundama were the applicants. The land owners in

that case were Sreenivasa Rao, Raja Shekaraiah and

Jalakanteshware of Venketapura village. It was further

found that the said order would disclose that the subject

involved in those matters are one comprised in survey

no.50/11 admeasuring 1 acre 10 guntas and survey no.56

admeasuring 5 acres and 36 guntas. On such

consideration it was found that respondent no.1 was not

a party in LRF No.1114/74-75 and the subject matter of

WP No.246717/2002 viz., survey No.49/43 is not the

subject matter of the said case. LRF No.835/74-75 relates

Page 16 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

to survey Nos.49/20, 49/43 and 49/17 of Jakkasandra

village and the declarants were Krishna, Andi, s/o

Muddanna and evidently the person referred as Andi

therein is none other than the first respondent. What was

challenged before the High Court by Sreenivasa Rao in

WP No.34193/81 was the decision in LRF 1114/74-75.

True that the High Court set aside the Land Tribunal’s

order in that case on ground that it is not a speaking

order. In such circumstances what was pending after the

remand was nothing but LRF No.1114/74-75 and not LRF

No.835/74-75. The application filed by respondent no.1

for grant of occupancy rights in LRF No.835/74-75 was

rejected as early as on 10.07.1981. If there was an order

pertaining to the case in LRF 835/74-75 after 10.07.1981

after clubbing it with the order in LRF No.1114/74-75

there was absolutely no necessity for the respondents to

change the name as Andi @ Andappa and Krishna @

Krishnappa and also to change the name of their father

as Lt. Muddanna @ Muniswamappa . The original

proceedings in LRF No.835/74-75 and in LRF No.1114/74-

75 would reveal the fact that the respondents-Andappa

and Krishnappa have not only made changes in their

names but also changed the name of their father by

Page 17 of 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018

showing that they are the sons of Mudanna @

Muniswamappa.

14. Taking into account all the said aspects and in the

light of the decision in Ramjas Foundation’s case

(supra) the impugned order passed in the Writ Appeals

are liable to be interfered with. Consequently, these

appeals are allowed and the judgments in Writ Appeal

Nos. 1708, 1705, 1707, 1709, 206 and 1738, of 2006 are set

aside and the judgment in the Writ Petitions from which

the corresponding appeals arose are restored.

……………………, J.

(C.T. Ravikumar)

……………………, J.

(Sanjay Kumar)

New Delhi;

January 02, 2025.