Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19185
WP No. 10745 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10745 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATASHAMAPPA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO 359, KURUTAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CHAYA
Location: High Court M.S.BUILDING
of Karnataka BANGALORE - 560 001
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 563 125
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 563 125
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19185
WP No. 10745 of 2024
4. THE TAHSILDAR
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUKA,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 563125
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 26/11/2002 PASSED
THE R4 IN LND RUO 60/2001-02 (ANNEXURE-S) ISSUED BY
THE R4 -TAHSILDAR AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL MUTATION
ORDER IN MR NO.49-13/2002-03 DATED 14/02/2003
(ANNEXURE-T) TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government
Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. She is permitted
to file memo of appearance for the respondents, in the
Registry, within two weeks.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated
26.11.2002 passed by the respondent No.4 in LND RUO
60/2001-02 (Annexure-S) and consequential mutation order in
M.R. No.49-13/02-03 dated 14.02.2003, entering the name of
the Government in the mutation register.
NC: 2024:KHC:19185
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the
petitioner Venkatashamappa has filed an application in Form 50
seeking regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of land to an
extent of 2 acres in Sy. No.3 of Kuratahalli Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Chintamani Taluk. It is also stated that the Committee
constituted for Regularisation of unauthorised occupation of
land has inspected the land in question and formed opinion that
the applicant was in cultivation of the land and accordingly,
land has been granted and phoded. However, the said aspect
was nullified by issuing the impugned Notification dated
26.11.2002 as per Annexure-S. Hence this writ petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that being aggrieved by the impugned order the present writ
petition is filed and the said impugned order is passed without
issuing notice to the petitioner and accordingly, sought for
interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate
submitted that there is inordinate delay of 22 years in filing the
Writ Petition and as such the delay defeats equity and
accordingly sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:19185
7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined
the averments made in the writ petition with regard to
explanation offered by the petitioner for condoning the delay of
22 years in filing the writ petition. However, no acceptable or
sufficient reason has been given in the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places
reliance on the Judgment dated 24.07.2023 in Civil Appeal
No.4628/2023 and submits that, in the above case, the delay
has been condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also it is
contended by the learned counsel appearing that while
considering the aspect relating to delay, factual aspects on
record has to be looked into, as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND
ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG AND ANOTHER Vs. MST.
KATIJI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (1987) 2 SCC 107.
However it is not in dispute that there is delay of 22 years in
filing the present Writ Petition. Recently, with regard to
inordinate delay in agitating the rights of the parties, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in MRINMOY MAITY Vs. CHHANDA
KOLEY AND OTHERS, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551,
NC: 2024:KHC:19185
at paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of its Judgment, has held as
follows:
"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal
of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the
considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been
non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have
been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself.
An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in
other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable
period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not
to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts.
This Court time and again has held that delay defeats
equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should
be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to
invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the
applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of
action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently
to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.
10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and
caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching
the writ court is explained which would appeal to the
conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot
be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to
come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be
myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of
the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts
and circumstances of each case, same cannot be
NC: 2024:KHC:19185
described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical
precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the
writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel on
the terrain in which the facts have travelled."
9. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforementioned Judgment, since no
acceptable reasons have been assigned by the petitioner herein
for condoning the delay of 22 years in filing the writ petition in
the case on hand and on the other hand, the Judgment referred
to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, wherein
there was a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal, and therefore,
in that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made
by the learned Additional Government Advocate and
accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
10. Consequently, I.A.1/2024 does not survive for
consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sac
