1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.3008 OF 2019 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.ANASUYA
DAUGHTER OF LATE T.RANGAPPA
WIFE OF SRI.B.D.BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT ITTIGI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
2. SMT.DEVAKI
DAUGHTER OF LATE T.RANGAPPA
WIFE OF SRI.VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT ITTIGI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
2
CHIEF SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE-577 001.
3. SRI.NARASIMHA DEVARU
ITTIGI VILLAGE
REPRESENTED BY MUZRAI OFFICER/
TAHSILDAR, CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
4. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
CHANNAGIRI
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
5. SRI.SHEKHARAPPA
SON OF SRI GIRI THIMMAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDEING AT ITTIGI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
6. SRI.B.RANGAPPA
SON OF SRI.SANNA HALAPPANAVA BYRAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDEING AT ITTIGI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
7. SRI.S SHIVAMURTHAPPA
SON OF SRI.SHANKARAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDEING AT ITTIGI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
3
8. SRI.N.MALLESHAPPA
SON OF SRI.NINGAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDEING AT ITTIGI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
9. SRI.SIDDAPPA
SON OF SRI.SHIVALINGAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDEING AT ITTIGI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1-R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.1280 OF 2013 (LR) ON
02.07.2019.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of order dated 02.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.1280 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge of this Court is called in question in this appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that there was long delay of thirteen years in assailing the impugned order of the 4 Deputy Commissioner dated 23.04.2001 and the delay not having been explained, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the applicant T.Rangappa, who was the father of the appellants had filed an application before the Land Tribunal contending that he was in actual possession and cultivation of the land in question. Initially, by order dated 27.08.1981, the Land Tribunal, Channagiri had allowed the said application. However, the said order was assailed before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.20380-20387 of 1992 and by the order dated 09.04.1997, the said writ petitions were allowed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner to re-consider the application filed by Sri.T.Rangappa along with the application filed by the rival contenders. Subsequent to remand, by order dated 23.04.2001, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application filed in Form No.1 by T.Rangappa. By then, T.Rangappa had demised on 29.12.1998. However, his 5 legal representatives, namely, the appellants herein were ordered to come on record and after hearing them, the impugned order dated 23.04.2001 was passed. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that, no doubt, there may be a delay in filing the writ petitions, but the land is ordered to be forfeited and as such, the valuable rights of the appellants are in jeopardy by the usurpation of the land in question. He, therefore, contended that interest of justice would be sub-served, if laches of thirteen years is condoned and the matter is taken up and considered on merits.
3. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate on advance notice supported the impugned order and contended that there is no merit in this appeal. There is no explanation, whatsoever, as to why the appellants filed writ petition in the year 2013, though the impugned order was passed on 23.04.2001. He submitted that the appeal may be dismissed by sustaining the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties in light of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the material on record. The detailed narration of the facts and contentions would not call for reiteration, except highlighting the fact that after remand of the matter in Writ Petition Nos.20380-20387 of 1992 on 09.04.1997 by this Court, the same was taken up for re-consideration by the Deputy Commissioner. No doubt, on 29.12.1998, when the matter was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, the applicant, namely, T.Rangappa, the father of the appellants herein died, but the appellants herein were brought on record as legal representatives before the said authority and they continued to prosecute Form No.1. By order dated 23.04.2001, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application filed by their father. Till 2013, the appellants remained silent and acquiesced in the matter and did not approach this Court by filing the writ petition, so as to assail the order dated 23.04.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. There is no reason for the gross 7 delay in approaching this Court in the year 2013. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal so as to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA.1 of 2019 filed for stay stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-