Karnataka High Court
M Mayanna vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
WP No. 21400 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 21400 OF 2022 (KLR-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
M. MAYANNA
S/O LATE MUNIBYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT,
K.R PURAM,
BENGALURU 560036
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI H. K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by R DEEPA
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU 560001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU 560002
3. TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
-2-
WP No. 21400 of 2022
KRISHNA RAJPURAM,
BENGALURU 560036
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
K.R PURAM,
BENGALURU 560036
5. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE (BMTF),
N.R. CIRCLE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGLAURU 560001
6. B NANJUNDASETTY
S/O B .S CHANDRAIAHSETTY,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.6, KRISHNA COLONY,
GANGAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE,
BENGLAURU 560036
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO EVICT THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 FROM THE ENCROACHED LAND BEARING
SITUATED AT SANNATHAMMANAHALLI ALIAS
TUMBUCHETTYPALYA, KRISNARAJAPURAHOBLI, BENGALURU
EAST TALUK MEASURING 0.4.12 GUNTAS AND RECOVER THE
SAID LAND BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 21400 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for
mandamus directing the respondents-authorities to evict
respondent No.6 from the encroached land bearing
Sy.No.46 situated at Sannathammanahalli,
Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East measuring 0.4.12
guntas.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition
are as under:
The land bearing Sy.No.46 is a Government land and
part of a lake is situated therein. The land belongs to
Forest Department. Out of total land, an extent of 0.4.12
guntas was encroached upon and grabbed by respondent
No.6. Respondent No.6 is an adjacent owner of land in
Sy.No.47/3. Respondent No.3 initiated a suo moto
proceedings by exercising powers under Section 39(ii) &
Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964,
and passed an order dated 17.04.2012. Respondent No.3
WP No. 21400 of 2022
has not taken any action to recover the Government land
pursuant to the order dated 17.04.2012. The petitioner
submitted representation dated 24.05.2014, to respondent
No.3, representation dated 03.08.2012 to respondent No.2
and representation dated 02.01.2015 to the Deputy
Secretary seeking appropriate action. The petitioner being
aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents-authorities in
evicting respondent No.6 from the encroached
Government (Forest) land in Sy.No.46, has filed this writ
petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.
S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate
for respondents 1 to 5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the land in question is a Government land and respondent
No.6 encroached upon the Government (Forest) land. He
submits that respondent No.3 has passed an order of
eviction. Inspite of the order passed by respondent No.3,
WP No. 21400 of 2022
respondent No.6 has not vacated and delivered the
possession. Hence he submits that the petitioner has
submitted representations for implementation of the order
passed by respondent No.3. Respondents-authorities have
not considered the representation. Hence the petitioner
has filed this PIL. Hence on these grounds he prays to
allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 submits that
the order was passed by respondent No.3 in the year 2014
and petitioner has submitted the representation on
02.01.2015, and has filed the writ petition in the year
2022. Thus there is a delay of 7 years in filing the PIL.
He submits that the petitioner has not explained the delay
in filing the PIL at a belated stage. Hence he prays to
dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
WP No. 21400 of 2022
7. Respondent No.3 initiated a suo moto
proceedings by exercising power under Section 39(ii) and
Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
After holding an enquiry, respondent No.3 passed an order
dated 17.04.2012, where a finding is recorded that
respondent No.6 encroached upon the Government land
illegally and directed respondent No.6 to handover the
possession of said land. Inspite of the order passed by
respondent No.3, respondent No.6 did not comply with the
said order. Respondent No.3 after passing the order, has
not taken any steps for implementation of the order dated
17.04.2012. Petitioner submitted representations on
03.08.2012, 24.05.2014 and 02.01.2015, to the
respondents-authorities. The respondents-authorities
have not taken any action on the representations
submitted by the petitioner. The last representation was
submitted by the petitioner on 02.01.2015, to the Deputy
Secretary. Petitioner filed the writ petition on 27.10.2022.
Petitioner approached this Court after lapse of more than 7
WP No. 21400 of 2022
years from the date of submission of his last
representation. Petitioner has not explained sufficient
cause for filing the present PIL after lapse of more than 7
years.
8. Petitioner has not stated about his antecedents
and credentials as required under Rule 11(b) of the High
Court of Karnataka (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2018.
There is no compliance of Rule 11(b) of the Rules of 2018.
9. The writ petition suffers from delay and laches.
We may at this stage refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER
SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & OTHERS VS. T.T. MURALI
BABU. It may be useful for us to refer to the observations
of the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 16 and 17 which
reads as under:
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should
not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required
to weigh the explanation offered and the
acceptability of the same. The court should bear in
mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and
equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has
a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but
WP No. 21400 of 2022
simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary
principle that when an aggrieved person, without
adequate reason, approaches the court at his own
leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal
obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated
stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted,
delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but
in most circumstances inordinate delay would only
invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the
doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and
inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination
is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does
not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.
Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the
lis. 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
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.
WP No. 21400 of 2022
17. Having dealt with the doctrine of delay and
laches, we shall presently proceed to deal with the
doctrine of proportionality which has been taken
recourse to by the High Court regard being had to
the obtaining factual matrix. We think it appropriate
to refer to some of the authorities which have been
placed reliance upon by the High Court."
10. At the cost of repetition, there is an inordinate
delay in filing the writ petition. Hence on the ground of
delay and laches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, we do not find any grounds to entertain the
writ petition (PIL). Hence we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is
permitted to pay the Court fee within a period of
one week from the date of this order.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RD
