Karnataka High Court

Pillappa vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 December, 2023

                                                  -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:44169
                                                         WP No. 13498 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                            BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 13498 OF 2023 (SCST)

                   BETWEEN:

                   PILLAPPA
                   S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
                   R/AT DASARA BEEDHI
                   17TH WARD
                   DEVANAHALLI TOWN AND TALUK - 562 110
                                                                 ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI. SHIVAREDDY K N., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                         DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
                         BENGALURU 560 001
Digitally signed
by SUNITHA         2.    DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GANGARAJU
                         DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN
Location: High
Court of                 BEERASADNRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI
Karnataka                DEVENAHALLI TALUK - 562 110

                   3.    THE TAHSILDAR
                         TALUK OFFICE DEVANAHALLI
                         DEVANAHALLI TALUK

                         PILLAMMA
                         SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S

                   4.    SHANTHAMMA
                         D/O LATE PILLAMMA
                         AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
                               -2-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:44169
                                       WP No. 13498 of 2023




     R/AT GOKARE VILLAGE
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110

     PAPAMMA
     SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S

5.   NARAYANASWAMY
     S/O LATE PAPAMMA AND H M MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     R/AT JAIN MANDIRA
     DODDABALLAPURA - VIJAYAPURA CROSS ROAD
     DEVANAHALLI TOWN
     DEVANAHALLI - 562 135

6.   KUMAR
     S/O LATE PAPAMMA AND H M MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     R/A JAIN MANDIRA
     DODDABALLAPURA - VIJAYAPURA CROSS ROAD
     DEVANAHALLI TOWN
     DEVANAHALLI - 562 135
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4.1.2019 PASSED IN
LND/SC-ST(A) 69/2006-07 BY THE R-2 HEREIN PRODUCED AT
ANNX-F AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
07.10.2006 IN PTCL(De):26/2004-05 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT HEREIN, PRODUCED AT IS ANNEXURE-E.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the

order passed by respondent No.1 dated 07.10.2006 vide

NC: 2023:KHC:44169

Annexure-E and order passed by respondent No.2 dated

04.01.2019 vide Annexure-F, has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are

as under:

It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing

Sy.No.98 (Old No.85) measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated

at Budihala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was

granted to the father of the petitioner. One Papamma, who

is the mother of respondent Nos.5 and 6 purchased the

said land under a registered sale deed dated 16.02.1971

from original grantee. One Pillamma who is the mother of

respondent No.3 purchased the property under a

registered sale deed dated 20.01.1975 from Papamma.

The petitioner filed an application under Sections 4 and 5

of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for

short 'the PTCL Act') before respondent No.1. Respondent

No.1 rejected the application vide order dated 07.10.2006.

The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent

NC: 2023:KHC:44169

No.2. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 04.01.2019

dismissed the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved by the

orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed this

writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the

learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent

Nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

respondent Nos.1 and 2 without proper consideration of

materials placed on record and without considering the

legal position as on the date and merely relying on the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 had passed the

impugned orders. He submits that the impugned orders

passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is contrary to the

object of the PTCL Act. He submits that the orders passed

by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is arbitrary and perverse and

NC: 2023:KHC:44169

same is liable to be set aside. Hence, on these grounds,

prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate supports the impugned orders passed by

respondent Nos.1 and 2. He also submits that the order

was passed by respondent No.2 on 04.01.2019 and the

petitioner filed the writ petition on 24.06.2023. He submits

that the petitioner has not shown the sufficient cause in

filing the writ petition at a belated stage. He submits that

on the ground of delay and latches the writ petition is

liable to be dismissed. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ

petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The land in Sy.No.98 measuring 01 acre 20

guntas situated at Budihala Village, Kasaba Hobli,

Devanahalli Taluk was granted in favour of father of the

petitioner on 15.06.1963. The petitioner filed an

NC: 2023:KHC:44169

application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act,

seeking for the relief of setting aside the alienations made

by them in favour of Papamma and subsequent sale

transactions. Respondent No.1 dismissed the application

filed by the petitioner on 07.10.2006. Respondent No.2

has passed an order on 04.01.2019 and the writ petition

was filed on 24.06.2023. Thus, there is a delay of 4 years

in filing the writ petition.

8. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is an instance of exercise of

jurisdiction in equity and therefore, before considering the

writ petition on merits, the doctrine of delay and latches

would have to be adverted to while exercising powers

under equity jurisdiction. The said view is supported by

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. N.

JAYAMMA & ORS., VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS., in

W.P.Nos.17906-17907/2016, disposed of on 05.02.2018.

The said view is reaffirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in HASNATH B. & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

NC: 2023:KHC:44169

& ORS., in W.P.No.41508-41512/2017, disposed of on

01.02.2018.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI

METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS.

T.T. MURALI BABU reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, at

paragraph No.17 has held as under:

"In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on

NC: 2023:KHC:44169

others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."

(Emphasis supplied)

10. There is a delay of more than 4 years in filing

the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

11. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

pass the following: