Karnataka High Court
Smt Anasuya vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2021
Author: B.V.Nagarathna And Uma
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
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
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.
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
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/-
