Karnataka High Court
Sri. T. Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB
WA No. 430 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
2. SRI T. SHAMANNA
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3. SMT. NANJAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
4. BHAGYA
D/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH 5. JAYALAKSHMI
COURT OF D/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
ALL RESIDING AT NO.567, 2nd CROSS
KAMATAGIRI, NAZARBAD
MYSORE - 570 010.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
BENGALURU 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB
WA No. 430 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT
KISHNARAJA BOULEVARD ROAD
MYSORE 570 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR SUB DIVISION, HUNSUR
MYSORE DISTRICT PIN - 571 105.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH, HUNSUR
MYSORE DISTRICT PIN - 571 105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDEV HEDGE M.N, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/03/2023,
PASSED IN WP NO.1370/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION OR PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/s WHICH
THIS HON BLE COURT DEEMS IT FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellants
challenging the order dated 09.03.2023 passed by the
NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB
HC-KAR
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1370/2022, whereby the
learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Vijaya
Kumar K. for the appellants and Sri.Sudev Hegde, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to
3.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended
that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that
since the father of the appellants had no notice of award
passed, they were unable to approach the Court for
compensation in the form of allotment of available sites in
the acquired land i.e., Sy.No.186/3 measuring 10 guntas
and Sy.No.186/5 measuring 0.09 guntas. The learned
Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the
respondents are duty bound to allot sites in lieu of
acquisition of lands in question. As such, he prays to allow
the appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge.
NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that
the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned
order considering the inordinate delay i.e., four decades in
claiming the compensation by the appellants herein, which
does not call for any interference at the hands of this
Court, particularly when there was no explanation for the
said inordinate delay. As such, he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
5. It could be gathered from records, the lands of
the appellants were acquired by the respondents in the
year 1975 itself vide final declaration dated 06.08.1975.
Subsequently, the award was passed and thereafter
notices were issued on 20.08.1976 and 27.08.1976 to one
Govinde Gowda and Nanjunda Gowda alleged to be
anubhavdars of the lands in question. Subsequently, the
lands were converted and sites were formed. Even if the
appellants were unaware of the award notices or that the
notices were issued to some other persons, they being the
NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB
HC-KAR
land losers would have approached the Court after the
possession was taken by the respondents either for award
of compensation or for any other claim in respect of lands
in question. However, the appellants kept quiet for nearly
four decades till 2021 i.e., when they issued legal notice to
the respondents. There is no explanation forthcoming for
this inordinate delay of nearly four decades. Thus, the
lethargic conduct of the appellants should be deprecated.
As such, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the
claim of the appellants herein.
6. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned
Single Judge has observed in paragraph No.3(a) and (b)
as under:
"3.XXXX
(a) The claim of the petitioners is structured
on the basis of the acquisition of land that was
accomplished about four decades ago under the
provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for
Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 as admitted in
paragraph 10 of the petition. The Preliminary
Notification is dated 01.03.1975 and Final Notification
NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB
HC-KAR
is dated 06.08.1975. The award was passed soon
thereafter and the award notice dated 27.08.1976
was issued long long ago. Thereafter another notice
dated 20.08.1976 came to be issued telling the
petitioners about the intended depositing of the
compensation amount in the court. Thereafter what
the land owner did in response to the same, is not
forthcoming from the records except that petitioners
made some representation only in the recent past
followed by a legal notice dated 06.08.2021. Thus a
long and inordinate delay coupled with abundant
laches attributable to the petitioners galore in the
matter. Virtually petitioners are asking the
respondents and the Court to travel back in the time
line too much and therefore that exercise is not worth
undertaking, at least as a concession to the shortness
of human life. It was Jeremy Bentham, an English
jurist of by gone centuries who said that Law could
not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy. Raking up stale
claims is not in the best interest of the society.
(b) Acquisition of land is a serious matter and
payment of compensation is no less serious. Where
State acquires the land for allotment of sites to the
lower strata of people, it pays the compensation
amount from the treasury and thus it is a matter
involving expenditure which in turn involves
budgetary allocation. If stale claims are raised now
that disturbs budgetary economics and therefore
such claims cannot be entertained by the writ court in
its equitable jurisdiction. Granting indulgence in
NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB
HC-KAR
matters of this kind would lay a very bad precedent
that does not augur well for the public interest. A
relief if granted on humanitarian ground may become
a right to other similarly circumstanced and therefore
no relief can be granted to the petitioner."
7. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed
that though award notices were issued on 20.08.1976 and
27.08.1976 in respect of lands in question informing the
appellants about the intending deposit of compensation
amount in the Court, the appellants have failed to respond
to the same till 06.08.2021 and that there was no
explanation from the appellants for the said inordinate
delay in approaching the Court.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI
METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
AND OTHERS Vs. T.T. MURALI BABU - (2014) 4 SCC 108,
at paragraph 17 has held as under;
"17. 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 scrutinise whether
NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB
HC-KAR
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 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. "
9. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment to the facts of this
case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has
NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB
HC-KAR
rightly rejected the claim of the appellants herein. Hence,
interference with the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge is not called for. Accordingly, writ
appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
