Karnataka High Court
Mourice Gonsalves vs Deputy Commissioner on 28 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB
WA No. 1347 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1347 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MOURICE GONSALVES
S/O. BENDIT GONSALAVENCE
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT BANNUR VILLAGE AND POST
BANNUR, PUTTUR TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574 203.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by H
K HEMA
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Location:
High Court MANGALURU
of Karnataka D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.
2. MAI DE DEUS CHURCH
PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT-574 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R.1;
SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB
WA No. 1347 of 2024
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 28.06.2024 IN WRIT PETITION
No.13598/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION IN WRIT PETITION NO.13598/2021 AS PRAYED FOR,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
Aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2024 passed in writ
petition No.13598 of 2021, the petitioner therein has preferred this
writ appeal.
2. The case of the appellant is that the lands which are the
subject matter of the writ appeal are Kumki lands to the Khadim
warga lands which belong to the appellant and that the appellant is
in unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the same from a very
NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB
long time and he is also utilizing the lands for better exploitation of
his Khadim warga lands. Hence, he has made an application for
regularization of unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the
lands concerned in the year 1991 itself. However, the State, in
consideration of the lands acquired from respondent No.2, allotted
the lands which are the subject matter of the writ appeal in favour
of respondent No.2 in the year 1994. The appellant came to know
of the said allotment only in the year 2015 when the respondent
No.2 tried to dig a borewell in the lands concerned and he
immediately, filed an Appeal No.635 of 2015 before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground
of delay. The same was challenged in writ petition No.13598 of
2021, which also came to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
Challenging the same, the present writ appeal is filed.
3. It is submitted that though the lands were allotted to the
respondent No.2 in the year 1994 itself, the appellant came to
know of it only in the year 2015 and immediately, he has
approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However,
disregarding this fact, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has
erroneously dismissed the appeal and the same has been again
NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB
erroneously upheld by learned Single Judge. It is further submitted
that the appellant has been in unauthorised occupation and
cultivation of lands concerned from a very long time and that the
State could not have allotted the lands in favour of respondent No.2
without considering the application made by the appellant in the
year 1991 itself, for regularization of his unauthorised occupation
and cultivation. On the said ground, it is prayed that the order
passed in writ petition No.13598 of 2021 be set aside and allow the
writ appeal as prayed for.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for
respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, justify the orders passed by both the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge. Attention
of the Court is drawn to the RTC produced by the appellant himself
which shows the mutation entry being changed in the year 1995-96
itself in the name of respondent No.2. On the said ground, it is
submitted that the appellant was aware of the said transaction and
that, respondent No.2 infact is in possession of the properties
concerned and it is submitted that the claim of the appellant is
NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB
rightly rejected by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as well as by
the learned Single Judge.
5. The appellant when asked about the mutation entry
recording the fact that the lands have been sanctioned in favour of
respondent No.2 in the year 1995-96 itself, he was not in a position
to dispute the same.
6. The fact that the mutation entry pertaining to the lands
concerned recorded the grant of lands in favour of respondent No.2
in the year 1995-96 itself and the same being reflected in the RTC
since then makes the submission of the appellant that he was not
aware of the lands being granted in favour of respondent No.2
unbelievable. Admittedly, the lands have been granted in favour of
respondent No.2 in the year 1994 itself. Thereafter, revenue
documents have been changed in the name of respondent No.2 in
the year 1995-96. The appellant has challenged the said grant for
the first time in the year 2015. There is an inordinate delay of more
than 20 years which has not been satisfactorily explained by the
appellant. Under the circumstances, no fault can be found in the
order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or by learned
Single Judge.
NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB
7. As the appeal is without any merits, the same is hereby
dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
VMB
