Karnataka High Court
Narasareddeppa Deceased By His Lrs And ... vs Balaji Rao And Anr on 18 August, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
WA No. 200061 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200061 OF 2024 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARASAREDDEPPA
DECEASED BY HIS LRS
2A) GADEPPA
S/O VEERANGOUDA
DIED BY LRS
2B) SRI PYATAPPA
S/O GADEPPA
Digitally signed AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
by
BASALINGAPPA R/O MUSTOOR VILLAGE, MANVI,
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR - 584 123.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2C) SRI ERANNAGOUDA
KARNATAKA
S/O GADEPPA,
AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O MUSTOOR VILLAGE, MANVI,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR - 584 123.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
WA No. 200061 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI BALAJI RAO
S/O MAREPPA
AGE 72 YEARS, OCC. RED. RAILWAY EMPLOYEE
R/O DOOR NO.5/331, GOURI ESHWAR NILAYA
SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, BEHIND RAILWAY GROUND,
ARASIKERE, TQ. ARASIKERE,
DIST. HASSAN.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MANVI
BY ITS SECRETARY/TAHSILDAR MANVI,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT HEMA L. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 02.08.2023, PASSED IN WP NO.103252/2013
(LR-RES), AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2023, PASSED
IN RP NO.200061/2023, BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 /PETITIONER, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
WA No. 200061 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This writ appeal is filed challenging the order passed
by the learned Single Judge in writ petition
No.103252/2013 wherein set aside the order dated
31.10.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal, Manvi and
matter was remitted back to the Land Tribunal for fresh
consideration after affording an opportunity to all the
aggrieved parties in the said proceedings.
2. The learned Single Judge also passed an order
that Land Tribunal shall expedite the proceedings and
complete the entire proceedings expeditiously since the lis
between the parties relates back to the year 1976. The
learned Single Judge while passing an order in paragraph
No.2 considering the grounds urged that, notice issued by
the Land Tribunal was not served to the petitioner, who
has been arrayed as respondent No.6 before the Land
Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner in the writ
petition that the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy
rights in favour of the contesting respondents herein
despite the notice is not served to the petitioner. The
petitioner came to know about the order passed by Land
Tribunal during the month of June, 2013 and immediately,
filed the present writ petition seeking aforesaid reliefs.
4. The contention of the learned counsel before
the learned Single Judge that the petitioner came to know
about the same only during the month of June, 2013
immediately he has challenged the impugned order passed
by the Land Tribunal.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents in this writ petition would contend that
the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches and also submits that order was passed
in the year 1980 and the writ petition is filed in the year
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
2013. The petitioner took nearly three decades to file the
writ petition and therefore, delay defeats equity.
6. It is further contended that children of late
Mareppa have accepted the order of the Tribunal and if the
writ petition is allowed, the third party rights created in
respect of the land in question will be affected.
7. The learned Single Judge having taken note of
the contentions in paragraph No.11 comes to the
conclusion that admittedly, there is delay of more than
three decades, however, the petitioner has not been heard
in the matter and his right accrued in respect of the land
in question has been jeopardized on account of the order
passed by the Land Tribunal by allowing the writ petition
challenged the said order by filing a review petition before
the learned Single Judge and in the review petition, the
learned Single Judge reiterated the same and dismissed
the review petition. Being aggrieved by the said order,
the present writ appeal is filed before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
8. The main contention of the appellants in the
writ appeal that the learned Single Judge committed an
error in setting aside the order and fails to take note of the
fact of inordinate delay of 33 years in challenging the
order of the Land Tribunal, for which no proper, valid and
reasonable explanation was offered except stating that he
came to know about the same in 2013. The counsel also
vehemently contend that there is no sufficient cause is
shown to condone the delay and ought to have dismissed
the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The
counsel also would vehemently contend that even after
when the matter was re-opened, notices were given and
even the brother of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner
also appeared before the Tribunal and failed to appear for
6-8 further hearing dates and also contend that when all
his brothers after abolition and reconstitution of the
Tribunal they appeared and contested the matter, under
the said circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be blamed
that it has not issued notices and as such co-owners
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
appeared before the Tribunal amounts to constructive
notice in all including the private respondents therein.
9. The counsel for the appellant also in support of
his argument relied upon the order passed by the Division
Bench of this court dated 20.06.2012 passed in
W.A.Nos.862-863/2011, wherein also in paragraph No.8
taken note of the contention and in paragraph No.10
answering the point for consideration which was framed in
para No.9, held, admittedly, the appellants are legal heirs
of Bharati Bai. The learned Tribunal has granted
occupancy rights in the year i.e., 26.09.1981. The writ
petitions are filed in 2010 nearly after 30 years after the
orders are passed by the Tribunal. The owner of the
property Bharati Bai died in the year 1986. As rightly
pointed by learned counsel for the respondents, atleast
after the death of Bharati Bai, the appellants were
required to make an application for change of khata and if
such an application had been filed, it would have known to
them that an order has been passed by the Land Tribunal
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
behind their back, but such an attempt is not made. In
addition to that, they have produced Annexure-J which is a
copy of the notice sent by the Tribunal to Bharati Bai. It
only assumes that notice sent to Bharati Bai was in her
custody and the Bharati Bai for the reasons best known to
her, has not contested the case. Therefore, the appellants
cannot now contend that she was not heard in the matter.
10. The counsel also relied upon the order passed
by this Court in W.P.No.37867/2011 dated 08.01.2013
and brought to the notice of this court in paragraph No.32,
wherein also an observation is made that the perusal of
the order sheet of the Land Tribunal reveals that the
petitioner's brother Sri B.H. Shamboji Rao was present on
several dates of hearing. The order sheet bears the
signature of the said B.H. Shamboji Rao. The order sheet,
dated 27.01.1977 states that Hanama Bai, Chikkamma
Bai, Lakshmi Bai and daughters of Hanumantha Rao and
Saraswathi and B.H. Shamboji Rao were present. The
order sheet also reveals that B.H. Parameshwara Rao's
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
another sister, Jaya Bai was not present. What can be
safely presumed from this is that the pendency of the
proceedings before the Tribunal was known in the family
circle of B.H. Parameshwara Rao. The petitioners, who
claim under B.H.Parameshwara Rao have not filed any
affidavits of Hanuma Bai, Chikkamma Bai, Lakshmi Bai,
Saraswathi and B.H. Shamboji Rao denying their
signatures/thumb impressions and their presence on
27.01.1977.
11. The learned counsel referring this order would
contend that once the family circle known about the same,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge also very
clear that there is lapses on the part of the respondent
No.1 in approaching the High Court by filing writ petition
after long period of 33 years.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1/petitioner in the writ petition before the
learned Single Judge would vehemently contend that the
learned Single Judge while passing an order taken note of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
factual aspect of the case and also the merits of the case
and also comes to the conclusion in paragraph Nos.11 and
12 that the principles of natural justice were not met and
aggrieved party in a proceedings has to be heard before
passing an order which affects his rights significantly and
giving such reasons only set aside the order which does
not require any interference.
13. The counsel would also vehemently contend
that the petitioner before the Tribunal has not been served
and no notice has been served on him and question of
presuming and construing that the brother having the
notice about the Land Tribunal proceedings cannot be a
ground to comes to a conclusion that he was having notice
and when such being the case in the absence of any such
notice, this Court cannot find fault with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge and hence it does not require
any interference.
14. The counsel also would vehemently contend
that after passing order by the learned Single Judge,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
review petition was also filed and in the review petition
also the learned Single Judge referring in para No.6 made
an observation that after the closure of the Tribunal,
notice will be issued to the petitioner and also the
respondents and separate notice will be issued. Having
considered the same also comes to the conclusion that the
Land Tribunal not served to the writ petitioner and hence
question of reviewing the order does not arise. The
learned counsel would also submit that as per Order V
Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 each parties shall
be served while passing an order and also the same is not
complied with and hence this Court cannot find fault with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge .
15. In reply to the submission of the respondents'
counsel, the counsel appearing for the appellants relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.22195/2025 and also
brought to the notice of this Court discussion made in
paragraph No.11, wherein there was a delay of 5250 days
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
in filing the application for restoration in view of dismissal
of non-prosecution and in para No.13 made an observation
that prima facie seems that the respondent has woken up
from his 'alleged slumber' as the respondent has much to
gain inasmuch as the appellant/developer has stepped in
and is carrying out construction at site on a mega scale.
16. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and perused the writ appeal papers, the only
question that arises for our consideration is that:
Whether the learned Single Judge has
committed an error in setting aside the
order of the Tribunal passed in the year
1980 and set aside the same in the
year 2023 after delay and laches of 43
years?
17. Having perused the material available on
record, there is no dispute that one of the sons of
Mareppa, who is the writ petitioner in
W.P.No.103252/2013 had filed a writ petition before this
Court. It is also not in dispute that earlier there was a
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
grant order dated 24.05.1976 wherein granted occupancy
rights in favour of the Narasareddeppa. The order passed
by the learned Land Tribunal was challenged before this
Court in W.P.No.11542/1976 and this Court by order dated
21.03.1978 (Annexure-C) set aside the order passed by
the Land Tribunal and the matter was remitted to the Land
Tribunal to hold fresh enquiry into the claims made by the
parties. Thereafter, the proceedings were taken up by the
Land Tribunal and in the said proceedings under Rule 48-A
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is the main
contention of respondent No.1 before the learned Single
Judge that he was not given an opportunity before passing
the order dated 31.10.1980 and no such notice was
issued.
18. The counsel appearing for the appellants
brought to the notice of this Court that after the revival of
the Land Tribunal, notice was issued and counsel has also
brought to the notice of this Court that one of the brother
of respondent No.1 Sri Arjunappa S/o Mareppa was also
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
appeared before the Tribunal on 24.09.1980 and order was
passed on 31.10.1980 and having given an opportunity to
the family member i.e., one of the brothers of the
respondent No.1 order was passed. The counsel also
brought to the notice of this court only reason was
assigned in the writ petition that no notice was served and
he came to know about the same in the year 2013 and
having perused the reasons assigned in the writ petition
also, it is clear that the proceedings were stopped in the
year 1979. But the proceedings was revived on
24.09.1980 before Tribunal after the notice, one of the
brothers of respondent No.1 was also appeared before the
Land Tribunal.
19. It is also important to note that reason assigned
in the writ petition that he came to know about the same
in the year 2013 that too after 33 years writ petition was
filed and impugned order was passed after 43 years. It is
also important to note that there is clear delay and laches
on the part of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner before
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
the learned Single Judge. It is also important to note that
he was also a party in the proceedings when the matter
was earlier set aside and remitted back to the Tribunal and
having had the knowledge of matter was remitted back to
the Tribunal and also the Land Tribunal was closed and the
same was revived also within his knowledge but he did not
even verify the same with the Land Tribunal whether
proceedings was revived or not and only after lapse of 33
years he had approached the learned Single Judge by filing
the writ petition and also the reason was given that he
came to know about the same in 2013 and what prevented
him from verifying the earlier proceedings also not stated
anything about the same. The respondent No.1 is also not
a layman and he was also working in the Railway
Department i.e., Central Government employee and this
Court in the writ petition in W.P.No.37867/2011 in
paragraph No.32 taken note of what can be safely
presumed from this is that the pendency of the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
proceedings before the Tribunal was known in the family
circle of B.H. Parameshwar Rao while disposing the matter.
20. In the case on hand also when his brother
Arjunappa S/o Mareppa was also appeared before the
Tribunal after revival of Tribunal and contested the matter
and he also did not challenge the order of the Tribunal and
other brothers of family of petitioner have kept quite and
this writ petition before the learned Single Judge filed after
33 years and apart from that the Division Bench of this
Court also in the writ appeal in W.A.Nos.862-863/2011
also having noticed that after 30 years after the orders are
passed by the Land Tribunal that was the occupancy rights
in the year 26.09.1981 when the challenge was made
wherein also an observation is made that it only presumes
that notice sent to Bharati Bai was in her custody and
Bharati Bai for the reasons best known to her has not
contested the case. Therefore, the appellant cannot now
contend that she was not heard in the matter and also
taken note of delay and laches on the part of the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
respondent No.1 while disposing the writ petition by the
learned Single Judge.
21. Apart from that, even Apex Court also in the
judgment referred in M/s. Sethia Infrastructure Private
Limited referred in civil appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition at para No.13 also categorically held that it is
nothing but prima facie seems that the respondent woken
up from his 'alleged slumber' as the respondent has much
to gain inasmuch as the appellant/developer has stepped
in and is carrying out construction at site on a mega scale,
wherein there was huge delay of 5250 days. In the
present case on hand also viz., respondent No.1 woken
after 33 years and impugned order was also passed after
43 years and learned Single Judge fails to take note of
lapses and also the delay in approaching this Court in
challenging the order was passed in the year 1980 by the
Tribunal and when such facts were not taken note of by
the learned Single Judge, same requires interference that
there is a clear delay and laches on the part of respondent
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
No.1 in approaching this Court after delay of 33 years and
impugned order was also passed after 43 years and it is
nothing but not diligence and lapses on the part of
petitioner in approaching the Court and when his family
members appeared and contested the matter before the
Land Tribunal and all of them have accepted and only
taking note of the notice was not served on him, he had
approached the learned Single Judge and obtained order,
the very order passed by the learned Single Judge requires
interference at the hands of this Court mainly on the
ground of delay and laches.
22. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 02.08.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.103252/2013 is set aside on the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4737-DB
HC-KAR
ground of delay and laches on the part of
the respondent No.1 i.e., the petitioner in
the writ petition.
iii) Consequently, the writ petition in
W.P.No.103252/2013 is hereby
dismissed.
sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
AMM,BL
CT:JLR
