Karnataka High Court
Sri. Aravinda Bhat Y G vs State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.2827 OF 2018 (LR-SEC48-A)
IN
W.P.NO.4494 OF 2018 (LR-SEC48-A)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ARAVINDA BHAT Y.G.
S/O. Y. GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT OKUDE HOUSE,
M.G. ROAD, KUNJIBETTU,
UDUPI - 576 102.
2. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR Y.G.
S/O. Y. GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT OKUDE HOUSE,
M.G. ROAD, KUNJIBETTU,
UDUPI - 576 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADV. -V/C)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
2
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL AUTHORITY
NO.1, UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI - 576 101.
3. SMT. INDIRA MADIVALA
W/O. LATE KUDDU MADIVALA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHIVALLI VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 102,
(SINCE DEAD, HER LR ARE ALREADY ON
RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.4).
4. SRI. RAMESH M.
S/O. LATE KUDDU MADIVALA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHIVALLI VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI K. PRASAD HEGDE, ADV., FOR R4
V/O. DT:11.03.2022 R2 IS DEAD & TO
TREAT R4 AS THE LRS OF DECEACED R3.)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 17.07.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.4494/2018 AND THEREBY
ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
19.08.1981 PASSED BY LAND TRIBUNAL, UDUPI, IN CASE
NO.LRY:77:1288:TRI:3306/77-78, AS PER ANNEXURE-J BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL WITH EXEMPLARY
COSTS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed against the
order dated 17.07.2018 by which writ petition
preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches. The appellant had
assailed the validity of the order dated 19.08.1981
passed by the land tribunal, Udupi after an inordinate
delay of 37 years. The learned Single Judge by taking
note of the precedence held that the writ petition
suffers from inordinate delay and laches and
therefore, refused to decline to exercise the
extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction. In the
aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been
filed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellants mother was not aware
of the notice of the proceedings and therefore, the
appellants had no knowledge about the order passed
by the land tribunal.
3. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused
the record. In the writ petition before the learned
Single Judge, the appellant has failed to explain the
inordinate delay of 37 years in filing the writ petition.
The mother of the appellants was impleaded as a
party to the proceeding before the land tribunal. She
during her lifetime has not assailed the validity of the
order passed by the land tribunal. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellants have failed
to explain the inordinate delay of 37 years in
challenging the order passed by the land tribunal on
19.08.1981. The learned Single Judge has therefore
rightly declined to exercise the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
