Karnataka High Court

Shri. T. Narasimhaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2023

Bench: S Rachaiah

                             -1-
                                       WP No. 15043 of 2016



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
                           BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
       WRIT PETITION NO. 15043 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:
SHRI. T.NARASIMHAIAH
S/O. LATE THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE
BEL LAYOUT, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE - 560 091.
                                                 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. R.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      REVENUE DEPARTMENT
      M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY
      COMMISSIONER FOR INAM
      BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 001.

3.    SMT. NARASAMMA
      W/O. LATE CHIKANNA
      AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
      R/AT KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE
      KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 060.

4.    SMT. HANUMAKKA
      W/O. HANUMANTHAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
      R/AT KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE
      KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 060.

5.    SMT. NAGAMMA
      W/O. MAHESWARAPPA
                             -2-
                                        WP No. 15043 of 2016



     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     R/AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE
     MATHAHALLI POST, DASANPURA HOBLI
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
     BENGALURU - 560 037.

6.   SMT. HANUMAKKA
     W/O. PUTTAGALAPPA @ RAJANNA
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
     R/AT NO.118, NEAR SRI. SUBRAMANYESHWARA
     TEMPLE, OLD MADRAS ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 008.

     6(a). KRISHNA
     S/O. PUTTAGALAPPA @ RAJANNA
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
     KENCHANAPURAPALYA
     SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
     BENGALURU SOUTH
     BENGALURU - 560 060.

     6(b). DASEGOWDA
     S/O. PUTTAGALAPPA @ RAJANNA
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
     KENCHANAPURAPALYA
     SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
     BENGALURU SOUTH
     BENGALURU - 560 060.

     6(c). NARAYANA
     S/O. PUTTAGALAPPA @ RAJANNA
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
     KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE
     SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
     BENGALURU SOUTH
     BENGALURU - 560 060.

7.   SMT. NARASAMMA
     W/O. HONNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     R/AT NO.8741, 4TH CROSS
     RIGHT SIDE MAGADI ROAD
     GOPALAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 021.

8.   SMT. LAKSHAMMA
     W/O. BYREGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                             -3-
                                     WP No. 15043 of 2016



     R/AT KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE
     KENGERI HOBLI, SULKERE POST
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
     BENGALURU - 560 060.

     SRI. K.T.VENKATESH
9.   S/O. LATE THIMMAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
     R/AT KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE
     KENGERI HOBLI, SULKERE POST
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
     BENGALURU - 560 060.

    SMT. SHANTHAMA
10. W/O. SIDDAGANGAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
    R/AT NO.62, 7TH CROSS
    COCONUT MEENAKSHINAGAR
    KAMASHIPALYA
    BENGALURU - 560 079.

    SMT. GANGAMMA
11. W/O. RAMANJINAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
    R/AT KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE
    KENGERI HOBLI, SULKERE POST
    BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
    BENGALURU - 560 060.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. M.SHIVAPRAKASH ADVOCATE FOR R3-11 AND R6(a-c)


      THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AD 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN CASE NO.38/59-60 DTD.8/11/1962 TO THE LAND
IN SY.NO.105 MEASURING 3 ACRES 24 GUNTAS SITUATED AT
KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR INAM VIDE ANNEXURE - N AND ETC.,

      THIS   W.P. HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING AND RESERVED ON
23.02.2023 AT THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, BEFORE KALABURAGI BENCH,
THROUGH      VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -4-
                                            WP No. 15043 of 2016



                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to issue

writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.11.1962 in case

No.38/1959-60 passed by the second respondent vide

Annexure-N and also seeking to issue writ of mandamus

directing the second respondent to consider the case of the

petitioner for grant of land in Sy.No.105 measuring 03 acres 24

guntas of Kenchapura village in favour of the petitioner as a

legal heir of Thammaiah s/o. Narasaiah.

Brief facts of the case:

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, his father

namely Thammaiah s/o. Narasaiah filed Form No.1 before the

Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, for registration of

occupancy rights on the strength of cultivation in respect of

land bearing its Sy.Nos. as under:-

            Sl.No.        Sy.No.         Extent
                                         Acre-Guntas
            1.            72             02-10
            2.            89             03-20
            3.            93             04-18
            4.            107/2          00-20
            5.            74             01-00

                                              WP No. 15043 of 2016

On 01.10.1959, a report was submitted by the Revenue

Inspector that, the survey numbers which Shri Thammaiah

stated supra corresponds to Sy.Nos.72, 74/1, 113 and 123/2.

It is further stated that, the said Thammaiah was also

cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.105 measuring 03 acres 24

guntas situated at Kenchapura Village as per the revenue

records. The proceeding was initiated on the basis of the

application filed by the father of the petitioner and which is

numbered as No.36/1959-60. The order came to be passed in

the said proceedings and it is alleged that, the Sy.No.105 of

Kenchapura Village had been left out.

3. It is further submitted that, Shri Thimmaiah s/o.

Narasegowda had also filed Form No.1 on 01.10.1959 seeking

occupancy rights in respect of the following Sy.Nos.:-

                 Sl.     Sy.No. Extent
                 No.                  Acre-Guntas


                 1.      50/2         01-29
                 2.      48           02-11
                 3.      50/3         02-24
                 4.      74/2         03-20
                 5.      108          00-19

A proceeding was also initiated before the Special Deputy

Commissioner for Inams in case No.38/1959-60. In the said

WP No. 15043 of 2016

proceeding, Sy.No.105 measuring 03 acre 24 guntas has been

allotted to Thimmaiah s/o. Narasegowda.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the second

respondent, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking the

reliefs as prayed for.

6. Heard Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned AGA for respondent

Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. M.Shivaprakash, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.3 to 11 and 6(a to c).

7. It the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner that, the order passed by the second respondent in

granting occupancy rights of the land bearing Sy.No.105

measuring 03 acres 24 guntas situated at Kenchapura Village in

favour of Shri Thimmaiah s/o. Narasegowda is contrary to law,

facts and probabilities of the case. It is further submitted that,

the second respondent granted the land in favour of Shri

Thimmaiah even though the said Thimmaiah has not claimed

the Sy.No.105 of Kenchapura Village in Form No.1. It is further

submitted that, the second respondent failed to consider the

fact that the father of the petitioner namely Thammaiah s/o.

Narasaiah was cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.105 of

WP No. 15043 of 2016

Kenchapura village and also the revenue records were standing

in the name of the father of the petitioner.

8. It is further submitted that, the second respondent

passed an order in favour of Thimmaiah s/o. Narasegowda on

08.11.1962 in case No.38/1959-60. It is the further contention

of learned counsel for the petitioner that, though the said

Thimmaiah was not in possession of the property, the second

respondent allotted the property bearing Sy.No.105 of

Kenchapura Village is highly illogical and improbable and the

same is liable to be set aside. As such, the learned counsel for

the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

9. Per contra, Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned AGA for

respondent Nos.1 and 2, submitted that the order under

challenge is of the year 1962. There is inordinate delay in

challenging the said order, certainly defeats the rights of the

parties. Hence, the writ petition can be dismissed on the

ground of delay and latches.

10. Similarly, learned counsel Shri M.Shivaprakash

appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 11 and respondent Nos.6(a-

c), in consonance with the submission of learned AGA,

contended that, even though the party or the petitioner has

WP No. 15043 of 2016

right to have the relief, however, the delay certainly defeats his

right. Making such submission, both the learned counsel for

the respondents have vehemently stressed on the point of

delay and latches rather than on merit.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective

parties and also perused the orders passed by the respondent

No.2 in favour of Thimmaiah s/o. Narasegowda, it is

appropriate at this stage to refer the judgment of the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition

No.105092/2017 (LR) dated 10.01.2020, para 6, which reads

thus:

"11. In this context, a plethora of decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue regarding delay and as to how a Court of equity exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot extend its hands to such persons who approach the Court after several years can be relied upon. In fact, the Apex Court has held in several decisions that stale claims ought not to be entertained by High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The recent decisions in that regard are as follows:

(a) In a recent decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa and Another v Mamata Mohanty, the consideration of an application where delay and laches could be attributed against a person who approaches in a

WP No. 15043 of 2016

writ petition is discussed by stating that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to writ jurisdiction, however, the doctrine of limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions could be dismissed at the initial stage on the ground of delay and laches.

(b) In the case of Shankara Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar and Others, the Apex Court at para 53 has given the relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches in approaching the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same reads as follows:

"53. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well-settled. They are:

(1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts;

(2) The principle on which the Courts refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners;

(3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Articles 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High

- 10 -

WP No. 15043 of 2016

Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy;

(4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts'

(5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay".

(c) Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Sawaran Lata v State of Haryana and Others, has held that when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2004, writ petitions filed for quashing of the notification in the year 2009 have to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the litigants who dare to abuse the process of the Court in disregard of the law of limitation, delay and laches should not be encouraged.

(d) Reference can also be made to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others v D.R. Laxmi and Others, wherein it has cautioned the High Court not to entertain the writ petitions where there is inordinate delay while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(e) Similarly, in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another v Shah Hyder Beig and Others, it has been opined thus:

"The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part

- 11 -

WP No. 15043 of 2016

of the petitioner so as to infer that he has given up his claim or where the petitioner has moved the Writ Court, the rights of the third parties have come into being which should not be allowed to disturb unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay."

(f) In fact in S.S. Balu and Another v State of Kerala and Others, it has been held that delay defeats equity and that relief can be denied on the round of delay alone even though relief is granted to other similarly situated persons who approach the Courts in time.

(g) To a similar effect is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao and Others."

It is well established law that settled position cannot be unsettled after decades. Thus, following the principles laid down in the above decisions I am of the view that the petition is liable to be rejected solely on the ground of delay and latches. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed."

12. On careful reading of the ratio of the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court and also the ratio as observed in the dictum

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court about the delay and latches is

aptly applicable to the case on hand. No doubt, the delay and

latches certainly defeats the right of the parties. Admittedly, in

the present case, the order passed by the second respondent in

granting the land bearing Sy.No.105 measuring 3 acres 24

- 12 -

WP No. 15043 of 2016

guntas situated at Kenchapura Village in favour of Thimmaiah

s/o. Narasegowda was on 08.11.1962. However, the present

writ petition has been filed seeking relief of setting aside the