Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chikkasavukaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13346
WP No. 9667 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 9667 OF 2024 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHIKKASAVUKAIAH
S/O. LATE SAVUKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
2. SMT. CHOWDAMMA
W/O. CHIKKASAVUKAIAH
BOTH ARE R/AT MANGALA VILLAGE,
HANURU HOBLI,
KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 126.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA MURTHY V., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by R DEEPA
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 313.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLLEGALA SUB DIVISION,
KOLLEGALA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 715.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13346
WP No. 9667 of 2024
4. SRI. R. SURESH MOHAN
S/O. RANGAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 12, III CROSS,
BHARATIYAR ROAD,
CHOLAIMEDU,
CHENNAI-600 074.
5. SRI. PUTTARAJU
S/O. JAYARAJU,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT MANGALA VILLAGE,
HANNUR HOBLI,
KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 126.
6. TAHSILDAR
KOLLEGALA TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 126
7. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
HANUR
KOLLEGALA TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 126
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1 - R3, R6 & R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2016 PASSED BY R3 IN
PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. PTCL/1/2011-12 IN SO FAR
RESUMPTION OF LAND IN FAVOUR OF GOVERNMENT IS
CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-A) AND QUASH THE ORDER DATE
2.8.21 PASSED BY R2 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.
PTCL/10/2016-17 WHEREIN THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED
15.10.2016 WAS CONFIRMED. (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:13346
WP No. 9667 of 2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the
order passed by respondent No.3 dated 25.10.2016 vide
Annexure-A and order passed by respondent No.2 dated
02.08.2021 vide Annexure-B.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are
as under:
It is the case of the petitioners that, petitioner No.1
was the absolute owner of an agricultural land bearing
Sy.No.313 situated at Hullepura village, Kollegala Taluk.
He had acquired the schedule property by way of grant on
21.08.1967. The original grantee sold the said land in
favour of one Smt. Mahalakshmi under registered sale
deed dated 13.09.1967. After the demise of Smt.
Mahalakshmi, the schedule property came to be mutated
in the name of her son vide MR No48/2005-06. On
15.10.2016, the petitioner No.1 filed an application before
the respondent No.3 under Section 5 of PTCL Act seeking
resumption of land. The respondent No.3 vide the
NC: 2024:KHC:13346
impugned order ordered to set aside MR No.48/2005-06,
however, instead of resuming the land to the petitioner
No.1, respondent No.3 resumed the land in favour of the
Government. The petitioners aggrieved by the said order
dated 25.10.2016, filed an appeal before the respondent
No.2. Respondent No.4 also filed a cross appeal against
the said order dated 25.10.2016. Respondent No.2 after
hearing the parties vide order dated 02.08.2021,
erroneously confirmed the order of respondent No.3. The
petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated
25.10.2016 and 02.08.2021 vide Annexures-A and B,
have filed this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri. Sudhindra Murthy V., learned counsel
for the petitioners and Smt. Anukanksha Kalkeri, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3,
6 and 7.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
respondent No.3 without proper consideration of materials
placed on record and without considering the legal position
NC: 2024:KHC:13346
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 AND VIVEK M HINDUJA AND OTHERS
VS. M.ASHWATHA REPORTED IN 2018 (1) KLR.LR. 176 ,
has passed the impugned order. He submits that the
impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is contrary to
the object of the PTCL Act. He submits that the order
passed by respondent No.3 is arbitrary and perverse and
same is liable to be set aside. Hence, on these grounds,
prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader supports the impugned orders passed by
respondent Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7. She also submits that the
order was passed by respondent No.3 on 25.10.2016 and
the petitioners filed the writ petition on 19.03.2024. She
submits that the petitioners have not shown the sufficient
cause in filing the writ petition at a belated stage. She
submits that on the ground of delay and latches the writ
NC: 2024:KHC:13346
petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, she 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 question was granted in favour of
petitioner No.1 i.e., Chikasahukaiah on 21.08.1967 under
darkasth rules. The said grantee executed a registered
sale deed in favour of Smt. Mahalakshmi under a
registered sale deed dated 13.09.1967. The petitioners
filed a petition under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the
respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 allowed the
petition and declared the registered sale deed dated
13.09.1967 as null and void and resumed the land in
favour of the Government. The petitioners aggrieved by
the order passed by respondent No.3 preferred an appeal
before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 vide
order dated 02.08.2021 dismissed the appeal by
confirming the order passed by respondent No.3. The
petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:13346
No.2 has filed this writ petition on 19.03.2024. The
petitioners have approached this Court after lapse of more
than 2 years from the date of passing an order by
respondent No.2. The petitioners have not shown sufficient
cause for filing the instant writ petition at a belated stage.
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 reiterated by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in HASNATH B. & ORS. VS. THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS., in W.P.No.41508-
41512/2017, disposed of on 01.02.2018.
NC: 2024:KHC:13346
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
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
NC: 2024:KHC:13346
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. Thus, there is a delay of more than 2 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:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sks
