Karnataka High Court
Hanamanth S/O Saibanna Iligar ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 10 January, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No.201917 OF 2021 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SATTEWWA
W/O HANMANTH ILAGER,
AGE. 79 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. MUMMATAGERI,
TALUK BADAMI,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT,
STATE OF KARNATAKA-586101.
2. SHIVAGANGAWWA
W/O AMALAYYA ILAGER ALIAS PATIL
AGE. 84 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. ANTRAL TALUK:
JATH DISTRICT:SANGALI,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-416404
REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONERS
SATISH S/O IRAYYA GUTTEDAR
AGE: ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/o AVANDHI
TALUK JATH. DISTRICT: SANGALI,
MAHARASHTRA-416 404.
... PETITIONERS
2
(BY SRI PRAKASH JADJAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560001.
2. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
OF VIJAYAPUR,
R/O. THE HEAD QUARTER,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL OF VIJAYAPUR
RE/BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
VIJAYAPUR TALUK,
STATE OF KARNATAKA-586101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO A) ISSUE THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE
VIDE FROM NO 7 (I.E, ANNEXURE - C) WHICH IS MADE
ON 31/12/1976 MADE BY THE RESPONDENTNO-4 I.E.
BHIMANNA KUMATAGI AGAINST TO THE SANGAPPA
BHIMANNA METI BASED FORM NO 7 AND ITS VIDE KLR
(SR) NO 30 OF ALIYABAD VILLAGE PROCEEDINGS
REGARDING THE SURVEY NO 144 OF ALIYABAD VILLAGE
3
MEASURING 24 ACRES 34 GUNTAS LAND IN QUESTION
WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL OF
VIJAYAPUR AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Though this writ petition is listed for preliminary
hearing, by the consent of the parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
2. The prayer made in this writ petition by the
petitioners reads as under:
(a) " Issue the writ of certiorari and quash
the vide Form No.7 (i.e. Annexure-C) which is
made on 31.12.1976 made by the respondent
No-4 i.e. Bhimanna Kumatagi against to the
Sangappa Bhimanna Meti based From No.7
and its vide KLR (SR) No 30 of Aliyabad Village
proceeding regarding the Survey No. 144 of
Aliyabad Village measuring 24 acres, 34 guntas
land in question which is pending before the
Land Tribunal of Vijayapur.
(b) Further may issue direction to the State
Government handover to the petitioners Land
in question which is illegally vested in
Government name by vide order Annexure-G
on 09.09.1981.
(c) Pass such other order or orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
3. The petitioner has challenged the Form No.7
(Annexure-C) dated 31.12.1976 made by respondent No.4,
wherein respondent No.4 herein made an application to
the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, conferring occupancy rights insofar as
the land in question.
4. Heard Sri Prakash Jadhav, learned counsel for
the petitioners and learned AGA for the respondents.
5. Perusal of the writ petition would indicate that
the petitioners have sought for quashing the Form No. 7
filed by respondent No.4 seeking occupancy rights in
respect of land in question. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein were
unaware about the proceedings before the Tribunal and
the land in question is belong to their father-Hanmanth
Ilager and therefore, even if there is delay in filing the writ
petition, however, petitioners have no knowledge about
the same.
6. Per contra, learned AGA, submitted that the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of
delay since the writ petition is filed after inordinate delay
of 46 years from the date of filing of Form No.7.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The
petitioners sought to challenge the Form No. 7 filed by
respondent No.4 before the land Tribunal on the ground
that they have no knowledge of the same. It is noted that
writ petition is filed with unexplained delay i.e. nearly 5
decades and after the cause of action arose, which
requires to be dismissed in view of the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankara Co-
operative Housing Society ltd., vs. M.Prabhakar and
others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607. Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply of Sewerage Board and Other vs. T.T.Murali
Babu reported in AIR 2014 SC 1141 has held that when
there is delay and laches in invoking the writ jurisdiction,
the Court can refuse to grant the relief to the petitioners.
It is well established principle of law by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Bangalore City Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd vs. State of Karnataka and others reported
in AIR 2012 SC 1395 that the writ petition filed with
delay shall not be entertained. It is rule of self imposed
restraint by this Court. In the case of New Delhi
Municipal Councill vs. Pan Singh reported AIR 2007
SC 1365, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the delay and
laches are relevant when exercising equity jurisdiction
under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In order to
consider the delay and laches, in the case of State of
Nagaland Vs. Lipock AO and Others reported in 2005 3
SCC 752, the Hon'ble Apex Court following the law
declared by the privy council has held that while
considering the delay and laches, it is not the length of
delay but the cause of delay has to be considered. In the
instant case, the writ petition is filed after in-ordinate
delay of 46 years, challenging the Form No.7 filed by
respondent No.4 and in that view of the matter, it may be
inferred that, the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting
the case and have not explained the delay with sufficient
cause in the writ petition. It is also well established law
that if the present writ petition is of this nature is
entertained, it may not be out of sight that the third
parties of rights have been created insofar as the land in
question. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that
the writ petition is deserves to be dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches and accordingly, dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
