Karnataka High Court
Kallappa S/O Halappa Khaddi vs The Land Tribunal Chikodi on 19 July, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WP No. 60943 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH
SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 60943 OF 2009 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. KALLAPPA S/O HALAPPA KHADDI,
@ KHADYAGOL, AGE. 53 YEARS,
OCC. SHEPHERDS & AGRICULTURE.
2. NINGAPPA S/O HALAPPA KHADDI
@ KHADYAGOL, AGE. 49 YEARS,
OCC. SHEPHERDS & AGRICULTURE.
3. NAGAPPA S/O HALAPPA KHADDI
@ KHADYAGOL, AGE. 47 YEARS,
OCC. SHEPHERDS & AGRICULTURE.
ALL ARE R/O. JODAKURALI -591201,
Digitally
TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELGAUM.
signed by
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA 4. MALLAPPA S/O LAKAPPA KHADDI
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date: @ KHADYAGOL, AGE. 46 YEARS,
2023.07.20
11:13:50 OCC. SHEPHERDS & AGRICULTURE.
+0530
5. MUTYAPPA S/O LAKAPPA KHADDI
@ KHADYAGOL, AGE. 44 YEARS,
OCC. SHEPHERDS & AGRICULTURE.
ALL ARE R/O JODAKURALI-591201,
TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELGAUM.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. H M DHAARIGOND, ADVOCATE PETITIONER 1,5 & 6;
PETITIONER 4 & 7 ARE DELETED)
-2-
WP No. 60943 of 2009
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHIKODI,
BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
CHIKODI-5912031,
DIST. BELGAUM.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE BACKWARD CLASS CO-OPERATIVE
FARMING SOCIETY LTD.,
BY ITS CHAIRMAN, UMARANI-591201,
TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELGAUM.
4. SRI. AJITRAO S/O APPASAHEB NIMBALKAR DESAI,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NANADI-591213,
TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELGAUM.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S B HEBBALLI & SRI. NEELENDRA D GUNDE,
ADVOCATES FOR R3; R4 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1, THE LAND TRIBUNAL CHIKODI, DATED 06-06-
1981 PASSED IN CASE NO. KLR/SR/UMARANI-67+112, PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-'A', BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
PETITION LANDS SY. NO. 256, MEASURING 2A-38GS, SY. NO.264
MEASURING 23A-08 GS, ALL SITUATED IN UMARANI VILLAGE, TAL:
CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 06.07.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 60943 of 2009
ORDER
1. The petitioners, who claim to be the owners of
the agricultural lands, which are subject matter of this writ
petition, have approached this Court invoking its
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, assailing the order dated 26.06.1981, passed by
the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal in proceedings bearing
No.KLRSR/UMARANI/67+112 vide Annexure-A, insofar as
it relates to granting of occupancy rights of the lands
bearing Sy.No.256 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas,
Sy.No.261 measuring 11 acres 20 guntas, Sy.No.263
measuring 15 acres 38 guntas and Sy.No.264 measuring
23 acres 8 guntas situated at Umarani village of Chikodi
taluk, Belagavi district (hereinafter referred to as 'the
lands in question').
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition as
revealed from the records narrated briefly are; the lands in
question originally belonged to one Sri.Appasaheb
WP No. 60943 of 2009
Nimbalkar Desai, the father of the 4th respondent herein.
The petitioners claim that they had purchased the said
lands in question from Appasaheb Nimbalkar Desai for a
valuable sale consideration under a registered sale deed
dated 29.09.1967 and pursuant to the said sale deed, the
entries in the revenue records of the lands in question
were also mutated in the names of the petitioners as per
M.E.No.2800, which was duly certified by the Revenue
Authorities in the year 1975.
4. After coming into force of the Karnataka Act
No.1 of 1974, the 3rd respondent-Society had filed Form
No.7 claiming occupancy rights of the lands in question
along with several other items of the lands. In the Form
No.7, the aforesaid Sri. Appasaheb Nimbalkar Desai, was
shown as the landlord of the lands in question. The 1st
respondent-Land Tribunal by order Annexure-A dated
26.06.1981, had granted occupancy rights of the lands in
question along with other items of the lands, totally
measuring 470 acres 38 guntas in favour of claimant.
WP No. 60943 of 2009
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before
this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, the 3rd respondent being a registered Co-operative
Farm is not entitled for claiming occupancy rights under
Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). He submits
that having regard to the provisions of law contained in
Chapter VI of the Act of 1961, the 3rd respondent cannot
be considered to be the tenant within the meaning of
Section 2(A)(34) of the Act of 1961. He submits the under
the impugned order, the Tribunal has proceeded to grant
occupancy rights of the lands totally measuring 470 acres
38 guntas in favour of the 3rd respondent, which is not
permissible under law having regard to Section 45(2) of
the Act of 1961. He also submits that only an individual is
entitled for grant of occupancy rights under the provisions
of the Act of 1961 and not a Society. He submits that the
order impugned was therefore passed by the Tribunal
WP No. 60943 of 2009
without jurisdiction. He also submits that the order
impugned is required to be quashed, on the ground of
violation of principles of natural justice, since the
petitioners were not made as a party to the proceedings
before the Tribunal though they had purchased the lands
in question in the year 1967 and ever since the year 1975,
the entries in the revenue records of the lands in question
stood in their names.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits
that since the impugned order has been passed by the
Land Tribunal without jurisdiction, the question of delay
cannot come in the way of this Court in granting the relief
to the petitioners. In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.6342/2012
disposed of on 22.11.2013 in the case of Mrs.Seetha @
Shakuntala Vs. The State of Karnataka.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
3rd respondent submits that, the writ petition is liable to be
WP No. 60943 of 2009
dismissed, on the ground of delay and latches alone. He
submits that absolutely there is no satisfactory explanation
offered by the petitioners for the inordinate delay of 28
years in preferring the writ petition. He refers to his
statement of objection and submits that the petitioners
had filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act of 1964') in the year 1991-92, challenging the entries
in the revenue records of the lands in question, which was
mutated in the name of the 3rd respondent on the strength
of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal. He submits that
the 3rd respondent has alienated the lands in question in
favour of the 3rd parties under a registered sale deed vide
Annexure-R6 executed in the year 2008 and prior to
executing the sale deed, the 3rd respondent had taken
permission from the Competent Authorities. He has also
referred to the Audit Report of the Society stating that
even in the Audit Report, there is a mention with regard to
the sale of the lands in question by the 3rd respondent in
favour of the 3rd party. He submits that, the landlord had
WP No. 60943 of 2009
appeared before the Land Tribunal and had not disputed
that the 3rd respondent was a tenant in respect of the
lands in question and therefore no error can be found in
the order impugned passed by the Land Tribunal.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
8. The order impugned has been passed in the
year 1981 granting occupancy rights of the lands in
question along with certain other items of land in favour of
the 3rd respondent. The material on record would go to
show that the petitioners had filed an appeal before the
jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under Section
136(2) of the Act of 1964, challenging the mutation
entries, which was made in favour of the 3rd respondent in
respect of the lands in question. In the said proceedings, a
specific defence was raised by the 3rd respondent that the
mutation entries were made in its favour on the strength
of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal dated
26.06.1981 and thereafter Form No.10 was also issued by
the Competent Authority, pursuant to the said orders of
WP No. 60943 of 2009
the Tribunal. Written arguments were filed to the said
effect by the 3rd respondent before the Assistant
Commissioner on 08.10.1992. Thereafter, for a period of
nearly 17 years, the petitioners have failed to initiate any
proceedings challenging the impugned order passed by the
Land Tribunal dated 26.06.1981.
9. The material on record would go to show that
the lands in question have been sold under a registered
sale deed vide Annexure-R6 dated 10.04.2008 executed
by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 3rd parties for a
valuable consideration and pursuant to the same, the
mutation entries were also transferred in the name of the
purchaser of the lands in question. Since the present writ
petition has been filed by the petitioners after the 3rd
respondent has created 3rd party interest in the lands in
question and since inordinate delay of 28 years has not
been properly and satisfactorily explained by the
petitioners, I am of the considered view that this writ
petition is liable to be dismissed, solely on the ground of
- 10 -
WP No. 60943 of 2009
delay and latches without going into the question of
validity of the impugned order dated 26.06.1981 passed
by the Land Tribunal.
10. It is trite that any order passed by the quasi-
judicial Authority or by the Court even if it is one without
jurisdiction, the same is required to be challenged in the
manner known to law. Any such challenge is required to
be made within the period of limitation and if no limitation
is provided within a reasonable period after the aggrieved
party has the knowledge of such order. In the case on
hand, though the impugned order is said to have been
passed without arraying the petitioners as party to the
proceedings, the material on record would clearly go to
show that in the year 1992 itself, the petitioners had
notice of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal when
the written argument was filed by the 3rd respondent
before the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal
proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section
136(2) of the Act of 1964. Thereafter for an inordinate
- 11 -
WP No. 60943 of 2009
period of 17 years, the petitioners have not chosen to
challenge the order impugned and in the meanwhile, the
3rd respondent had executed registered sale deed in
respect of the lands in question in favour of certain 3rd
party and thereby the 3rd party rights have been already
created in the lands in question. Undisputedly, the said 3rd
party on whom rights have been created on the strength
of the registered sale deed in the year 2008, are not
before this Court.
11. In the case of State of Rajasthan and Others
Vs. D.R.Laxmi and Others reported in (1996) 6 SCC
445, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 10 has
observed as follows:
"10. The order or action, if ultra vires the power,
it becomes void and it does not confer any right. But the
action need not necessarily set at naught in all events.
Though the order may be void, if the party does not
approach the Court within reasonable time, which is
always a question of fact and have the order invalidated
or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has
to be exercised in a reasonable manner. When the
discretion has been conferred on the Court, the Court
- 12 -
WP No. 60943 of 2009
may in appropriate case decline to grant the relief, even
if it holds that the order was void. The net result is that
extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court may not be
exercised in such circumstances."
12. In the case of Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad
Vs.Gangaram Narayan Ambekar & Ors. reported in
(2020) 6 S.C.R. 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at
paragraphs 28 and 29 of its order has observed as follows:
"28. The above case was approved by this Court in
Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay
Environmental Action Group [(2011) 3 SCC 363],
wherein this Court observed: (SCC pp. 36970, para 19)
"19. Thus, from the above it emerges that even if
the order/notification is void/voidable, the party
aggrieved by the same cannot decide that the said
order/notification is not binding upon it. It has to
approach the court for seeking such declaration. The
order may be hypothetically a nullity and even if its
invalidity is challenged before the court in a given
circumstance, the court may refuse to quash the
same on various grounds including the standing of
the petitioner or on the ground of delay or on the
doctrine of waiver or any other legal reason. The
order may be void for one purpose or for one person,
it may not be so for another purpose or another
person."
- 13 -
WP No. 60943 of 2009
29. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in
Pune Municipal Corpn. v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 5
SCC 211] wherein this Court discussed the need for
determination of invalidity of an order for public
purposes: (SCC pp. 22526, paras 36 & 3839)
"36. It is well settled that no order can be ignored
altogether unless a finding is recorded that it was
illegal, void or not in consonance with law. As Prof.
Wade states:
'The principle must be equally true even where the
"brand of invalidity" is plainly visible: for there also
the order can effectively be resisted in law only by
obtaining the decision of the court' [ H.W.R. Wade,
Administrative Law (6th Edn., Clarendon Press,
Oxford 1988) 352].
He further states:
'The truth of the matter is that the court will
invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought
by the right person in the right proceedings and
circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a
nullity, but the court may refuse to quash it because
of the plaintiff's lack of standing, because he does not
deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has
waived his rights, or for some other legal reason. In
any such case the "void" order remains effective and
is, in reality, valid. It follows that an order may be
void for one purpose and valid for another; and that
it may be void against one person but valid against
- 14 -
WP No. 60943 of 2009
another.' [H.W.R. Wade, Administrative Law (6th
Edn., Clarendon Press, Oxford 1988) 35253]
***
38. A similar question came up for
consideration before this Court in State of Punjab v.
Gurdev Singh [(1991) 4 SCC 1].
...
39. Setting aside the decree passed by all the courts
and referring to several cases, this Court held that if
the party aggrieved by invalidity of the order intends
to approach the court for declaration that the order
against him was inoperative, he must come before
the court within the period prescribed by limitation.
'If the statutory time of limitation expires, the court
cannot give the declaration sought for.'""
13. From the perusal of the pleadings in this writ
petition, it is seen that absolutely no satisfactory reason
has been assigned by the petitioners for condoning
inordinate delay of 28 years in filing the writ petition.
Though the petitioners have stated that they came to
know about the impugned order only in the 2nd week of
June 2008, when there were rumors in the village that the
lands in question are likely to be alienated by the 3rd
- 15 -
WP No. 60943 of 2009
respondent and they came to know about the orders
impugned after verification from the Revenue Officer, the
same cannot be believed, in view of the statement of
objection filed by the 3rd respondent producing necessary
material before this Court to show that the petitioners had
earlier initiated proceedings in the year 1992 under
Section 136(2) of the Act of 1964 challenging the mutation
entries that were made in the name of the 3rd respondent
in respect of the lands in question.
14. In the present case, the petitioners had notice
of the order impugned passed by the Land Tribunal in the
year 1992, but no steps have been taken by them to
challenge the said order before the Competent Forum in
the manner known to law and absolutely no reasons have
been assigned from the year 1992 onwards till the year
2009. The judgment in the case of Seetha (supra) was
rendered in a case wherein the writ petition was filed
immediately after aggrieved party came to know of the
order impugned passed by the Land Tribunal. Therefore
- 16 -
WP No. 60943 of 2009
the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
15. Under the circumstances, I am of the
considered view that the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed, solely on the ground of delay and latches and
accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kgk/Ct:Bck
