Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rajashree vs State Of Karnataka on 17 June, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.31717/1993 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAJASHREE
W/O. M.R. BALLAL,
MALA VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK,
D.K.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTATED BY THE
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
LAND TRIBUNAL,
KARKALA, D.K.
3. SMT. BACHU SHEDTHY
SINCE DEAD
2
3a. SRI. RAJU SHEDTHY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/A HALAPATTI
THARIDANDA HOUSE, MALA POST
3b. SMT. JALAJA SHEDTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A KANGAJE HOUSE, POST MALA
KARKALA TALUK
3c. SRI. NAGAPPA SHEDTHY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A KODIBELTHE HOUSE
MALA VILLAGE & POST
MALA
3d. SRI. SHEENA SHEDTHY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A DARKAST
NEAR MARIGUDI
MALA VILLAGE & POST
MALA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR
R1 AND R2 FOR SRI. PRAKASHA HEGDE.K.,
FOR R3(B) & R3(D), ADVOCATE)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALLING FOR THE RECORDS IN TRL.2531-1976-77
DATED:25.03.1977 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-B); QUASH THE ORDER
DATED:25.03.1977 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed challenging an order of the
Land Tribunal dated 25.03.1977.
2. By the said order, the Land Tribunal has conferred
the occupancy rights in favour of Smt.Paru Shedthi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained, since the
petitioner who had acquired the property under a
registered partition deed in the year 1973 was not even
notified of the proceedings.
4. He further contends that pursuant to the registered
partition deed of the year 1973, the name of the petitioner
was mutated in the revenue records and it clearly indicated
that the petitioner being a minor and was represented by
her mother and despite this clear revenue entry, the Land
Tribunal had chosen to confer occupancy rights in favour of
Smt.Paru Shedthi, on the basis of an admission stated to
have been made by the grand father of the petitioner.
5. The legal representative of respondent No.3 ie., the
tenant who was conferred with the occupancy rights
contends that there is absolutely no justification for
condoning the delay of nearly 16 years in filing the writ
petition. He submits that immediately after the order of
the Land Tribunal, the revenue entries were changed and
thus, the order of the Land Tribunal was within the
knowledge of the petitioner.
6. He relies upon the following judgments:
(i) ILR 2005 Kar 3048
Anil M Putran Vs. Land Tribunal
(ii) W.P.No.47360-362/2007
Smt.M.G.Kamala Vs. State of Karnataka
(iii) 2005 SCC Online Kar.2628
A.Susheel Vs. Land Tribunal
(iv) (2009) SCC 48
Municipal Council Ahmadnagar Vs.
Shah Hyder
(v) W.P.No.112616/2015
M.Rudregowda Vs. State of Karnataka
(vi) 2014 SCC online Kar.9642
Vena Kondlu Vs. Mahalingeshwara temple
Vs. State of Karnataka
(vii) Civil Appeal No.7657-7658/2007
Supreme Court
Nadakereppa Vs. Pillamma.
to contend that the petition was liable to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and latches.
7. In this case, it is not in dispute that there is a
registered partition deed dated 29.05.1973. Under the
said partition deed, the petitioner who was aged about
eight years was allotted the lands in question. Since, the
petitioner was a minor, her mother was made the guardian
in respect of the land allotted to the petitioner.
8. This registered partition deed was also reflected in
the revenue records and the name of the petitioner was
entered in the revenue records, with a specific mention
that the petitioner was the ownership of the land and was
being represented by her mother, who was her guardian.
9. The Land Tribunal, despite the fact that the revenue
entries were standing in the name of the petitioner, has
proceeded to pass the impugned order without notifying
her or her mother. It is obvious that the registered
Khatedar ie., the petitioner was not notified of the order.
In a case where the registered Khadedar is not notified
and has not even made a party before the Land Tribunal,
obviously, the said order cannot be sustained.
10. However, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.3 contends that there is an inordinate delay of 16 years
and therefore, the petition ought not be entertained. As
stated above, he relies upon the decisions of the Supreme
Court as well as the decisions rendered by this Court,
wherein, it has been stated that the writ petition cannot be
entertained, if it suffer from delay and latches.
11. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that
writ petitions should not be entertained, if they are belated
or if they are filed after an inordinate delay. However, in
all the cases cited by the petitioner, the Courts were not
dealing with a case, where a person who is not a party to
the order impugned therein. Therefore, the decisions relied
upon by the learned counsel would have no application.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 is unable to
prove that the petitioner was aware of the order. In the
light of the fact that the petitioner, though being shown as
the Khatedar in the revenue records, was not even made a
party and notified by the Land Tribunal, the order passed
by the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained. There would be
no question of delay or laches in this case since the
petitioner was not even made a party before the Land
Tribunal.
13. The order of the Land Tribunal is accordingly
quashed. The matter shall stand remitted to the Land
Tribunal, who shall implead the petitioner herein as a
landlord and the Land Tribunal shall afford an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, proceed to pass
the orders in accordance with law.
14. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
SD/-
JUDGE
GH
