Karnataka High Court
Smt Venkamma Shedthi vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2021
Author: Chief Justice Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL NO.620 OF 2021 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VENKAMMA SHEDTHI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF PADDAMMA SHEDTHI
MAIRAGULI OF ALOOR VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH M G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
KUNDAPURA BY ITS SECRETARY
KUNDAPURA
3. SMT. PADDAMMA SHEDTHI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2
D/O ANTHAMMA SHEDTHI
MAIRAGULU OF ALOOR VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO 1. CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT LAND
TRIBUNAL IN ITS PROCEEDINGS IN TRI/878/77-78 DATED
29/08/1981 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is filed questioning the order dated
10.06.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.15779/1990.
2. The subject matter of the appeal is agricultural
lands bearing Sy.No.44/8 measuring 69 cents and Sy.No.44/9
measuring 44 cents situated at Aloor Village, Kundapur Taluk.
After coming into force of the Land Reforms Act, the
respondent No.3 filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in
respect of the lands in question. The Land Tribunal by order
dated 29.08.1981 granted occupancy rights in favour of the
respondent No.3.
3. The present appellant herein questioned the order
dated 29.08.1981 in the year 1990 before the learned Single
Judge. The matter was taken up for hearing before the
learned Single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed by
order dated 10.06.1996. The present appellant assailing the
order dated 10.06.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge
has preferred the top noted appeal after lapse of 25 years.
4. We have perused the averments made in paragraph
4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On perusal of the same, we do
not find any satisfactory explanation for having caused delay
in approaching this Court. No cogent reasons are assigned.
5. On perusal of the material on record, we would find
that there is absolute laxness on the part of the appellant in
not diligently prosecuting her case. It can be gathered from
the records that the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights
by order dated 29.08.1981. This order is challenged before
the learned Single Judge after lapse of nine years and the
present appeal is filed after lapse of 25 years.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has
held that the concept of liberal approach and substantial
justice cannot be extended to those cases where there is a
gross delay. The law of limitation is a substantial law and has
definite consequences on the rights of the parties. These
principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately
depending on the facts and circumstances of the given case.
7. In the present case on hand, the Land Tribunal
conferred occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3 by
order dated 29.08.1981. The said order was challenged after
lapse of nine years. The writ petition filed by the appellant
herein was dismissed way back in 1996. The respondent No.3
has acquired valid right and title pursuant to adjudication by a
competent Tribunal. In the present case on hand, there is
absolute failure on the part of the appellant herein to explain
the inordinate delay by showing sufficient cause. If these
significant details are taken into consideration, we are of the
view that it would be unreasonable to take away the rights
which stood crystalized by passage of time, by mere asking of
the applicant particularly when the delay is directly a result of
negligence on the part of the appellant herein. There is
absolutely no justification in inordinate delay caused in the
present case on hand. Lot of water has flown and the rights of
respondent No.3 are crystalized and at this juncture, the same
cannot be set at naught and the appellant cannot be permitted
to re-agitate the claim which was put at rest by the learned
Single Judge by order dated 10.06.1996.
8. In the light of observations made supra, we pass
the following:
ORDER
The inordinate delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly,
the application filed in I.A.No.1/2021 is rejected.
Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed on the ground of
delay.
No order as to costs.
The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
