Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahalinga Poojari vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL NO.2 OF 2022(KLRA)
BETWEEN:
SRI MAHALINGA POOJARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
SRI. BABU POOJARI
S/O MAHALINGA POOJARI
AGED 64 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/AT ANEGALLI VILLAGE AND POST
KUNDAPURA TQ, D K DIST-576211
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KUNDAPURA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
KUNDAPURA TQ, UDUPI DIST
2
3. SMT MAHALAKSHMIYAMMA
D/O KANNAIAH HEBBAR
AGE MAJOR
R/AT ANEGALLI VILLAGE AND POST
KUNDAPURA TQ, UDUPI DIST
4. SRI VENKATARAMANA HEBBAR
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA HEBBAR
AGE MAJOR
R/AT ANEGALLI VILLAGE AND POST
KUNDAPURA TQ, UDUPI DIST
5. SMT.KOLLAMMA SHEDTHI
D/O ANCHAMMA SHEDTHI
AGED MAJOR
R/AT BASRUR VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TQ, UDUPI DIST
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
30.09.2021, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN .W. P.
NO. 29017/1995 (KLRA) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY
THE APPELLANT FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2001
AND ALSO FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE
APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2001, TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND B. PASS ANY OTHER
AND FURTHER RELIEFS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
In view of the order passed by the Apex Court dated
10.01.2022 in Misc.No.21/2022 filed in Suo Motu Writ
Petition(c)No.3/2020, the delay in filing the appeal stands
condoned.
2. This intra Court appeal is filed by the petitioner-
appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
Judge declining to recall the order dated 2.7.2001.
3. The appellant herein claims to be the son-in-law of
the original applicant namely Late Rama alias Mahalinga
Poojari. The appellant contends that his father-in-law filed
Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal has
granted occupancy rights in respect of ten items of lands and
rejected Form No.7 insofar as remaining seven items of
agricultural lands are concerned. Feeling aggrieved by the
rejection, the father-in-law of the appellant herein filed writ
petition in W.P.29017/1995. It is also stated that the caption
writ petition was filed after abolition of Appellate Authority at
Kundapur.
4. The said writ petition was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 2.7.2001. Applications were filed to recall the
said order. The learned Single Judge has declined to accept
the explanation offered by the appellant herein and has
rejected the application. The said order dated 30.9.2019
passed on an interlocutory applications filed in I.A.No.1 and
2/2021 is under challenge before this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for appellant. Perused
the order under challenge.
6. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant has filed the present applications after lapse of 6819
days. This Court would find that there is delay of twenty years
in seeking restoration of writ petition which was dismissed for
non-prosecution. The explanation offered by the appellant
herein that he had undergone an operation in 2012 was not
accepted by the learned Single Judge. We are unable to
understand as to how the ill-health of the appellant herein
during 2012 would be relevant to condone the inordinate
delay.
7. On perusal of the records, we would find that the
learned Single Judge has passed order on 10.11.2000 granting
time to take steps and the writ petition was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 2.7.2001. The Land Tribunal has rejected the
claim of the original applicant by order dated 11.6.1981.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that at this juncture, the
appellant herein cannot be permitted to revive the litigation
which has attained finality on account of laxness on the part of
the original applicant who had suffered an order way back in
the year 1981. If landlord has the benefit of an order and if
rights are vested way back in 1981, the inordinate delay which
is not properly explained cannot be condoned. On account of
laches on the part of the original applicant who had knocked
the doors of the writ Court, was not diligent in prosecuting the
writ petition, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Therefore, the rights vested in respondent-landlord on account
of passage of time cannot be disturbed at this juncture. If
inordinate delay is condoned, serious prejudice would be
caused to the landlord. It is quite interesting to note that
after dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution, the
original applicant namely Rama alias Mahalinga Poojari who
has suffered an order way back in 1981 during his life time
had not chosen to file appropriate application seeking
restoration of writ petition. It is quite strange to note that
the present appellant who claims to be the son-in-law of the
original applicant is seeking restoration of the writ petition.
We would also doubt his locus, more particularly, when the
original tenant has never made any attempts to seek
restoration of the writ petition. Even on this count, the
applications filed by the present appellant herein cannot be
entertained at this juncture.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Lanka
Venkateshwaralu(d) by L.Rs .vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and others1 has held that the concepts such as
"liberal approach", "justice oriented approach", "substantial
justice" cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of
limitation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another .vs. MST. Katji
and others2 has also laid down illustrative contours under
which an application for condonation of delay requires to be
examined. There is absolutely no proof of sufficient cause.
The delay is inordinate and unexplained. The affidavit
supporting the application also suffers from vagueness.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting
the application. We do not find any error in the order under
challenge.
9. Hence, we pass the following:
AIR 2011 SC 1199
AIR 1987 SC 1353
ORDER
Writ appeal is dismissed.
The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
