Karnataka High Court
Suresh S/O. Hanumantappa Jambagi vs State Of Karnataka on 4 September, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401
WP No. 106328 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.106328 OF 2014 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SURESH S/O. HANUMANTAPPA JAMBAGI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: GROUP "D" EMPLOYEE,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
KNNL MLBCC CIRCLE, NAVILU THIRTHA
POST-591116, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.G.CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SAMREEN REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
AYUB
DESHNUR DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION,
Digitally signed by
M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
SAMREEN AYUB
DESHNUR
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001.
DHARWAD BENCH
2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
ORGANISATION, ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560009.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
KNNL MALAPRABHA PROJECT ZONE
COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401
WP No. 106328 of 2014
HC-KAR
4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
KNNLM.L.BCC CIRCLE OFFICE,
NAVILU THEERTHA-591116,
TQ: SOUNDATTI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. GIRISH HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;
SRI. S.M.TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. R.N.MISALE AND
SRI. SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 26.04.2014 IN NO.M.A.KA.NI.VRUTHA/C3/
HUB/2013-14/240 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-J AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT TIME
BOND SCALE TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF
REGULARIZATION THAT IS 02.05.1993 AND CONTINUE THE
PETITIONER IN THE POST OF LITERATE ASSISTANT IN GROUP-C
POST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401
WP No. 106328 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 26.04.2014 in noM.A.KA.NI.VRUTHA/C3/HUB/2013-14/240 passed by the 4th respondent vide ANNEXURE-J in the interest of justice and equity.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant time bond scale to the petitioner from the date of regularization that is 02.05.1993 and continue the petitioner in the post of Literate Assistant in group C post in the interest of justice and equity.
(c) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case including award of cost in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of material on record will indicate that the petitioner was appointed to respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 13.01.1984, as a daily wages employee. On 02.09.1994, the services of the petitioner were regularized in the post/cadre of Literate Assistant with effect from 02.05.1993. In pursuance of the said regularization of the petitioner to Group 'C' post in the cadre of Literate Assistant in respondent Nos.3 and 4, the respondents issued a statement indicating that the salary payable in favour of the petitioner should be in consonance with Group 'C' post. Subsequently, respondent Nos.3 and 4 passed an order dated 22.03.1995, recalling its earlier order and absorbing the petitioner only to Group 'D' post and not against Group 'C' post.
4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.03.1995, the petitioner approached this Court in -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR WP No.13686/2000, which was allowed and the matter remitted back to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for re- consideration afresh in accordance with law.
5. The said order dated 22.03.1995, is reads as under:
"The services of the petitioner in the post of Group C was regularized by the 2nd respondent by order dated 2.9.1994 with effect from 2.5.1993. Thereafter, respondent-4 by his order dated 22.3.1995, produced as Annexure-D, modified the order of regularisation by regularising the services of the petitioner in the post of 'barakooli'. This order is under challenge by the petitioner in this writ petition.
2.The reason assigned by respondent- 4 for regularising the petitioner in the post of 'barakooli' by modifying the earlier order is that there is tampering of records regarding his original appointment. Whether, in fact, there is tampering of records or not is a matter to be decided after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. In the instant case, no opportunity appears to have been afforded -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR to the petitioner before passing Annexure- D. Therefore, in my opinion, the matter requires reconsideration.
3.In the result, I pass the following order:-
i) Writ petition is allowed;
ii) The order dated 22.3.1995 passed by respondent-4 produced as Annexure-D is quashed;
iii) Matter is remitted to the respondents to reconsider the matter afresh after due notice to the petitioner."
6. In pursuance of the said order dated 02.06.2000 passed by this Court in WP No.13686/2000, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 passed an order dated 20.12.2000, regularizing the appointment of the petitioner to the post of a Literate Assistant with effect from 02.06.2000 and not from the date of earlier/original appointment.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.12.2000, to the limited/restricted extent that -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR it directed his appointment as a Literate Assistant from 02.06.2000 and not from 02.05.1993, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.04.2014, to the respondent No.4 seeking grant of time bond scale from the date of regularization.
8. It is the grievance of the petitioner that instead of considering the claim of the petitioner for regularization of appointment and payment as a Literate Assistant from the year 1993, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 instead passed the impugned order at Annexure-J dated 26.04.2014, purporting to withdraw/recall its earlier order dated 20.12.2000, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 26.04.2014 at Annexure-J, is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the reasons assigned therein are totally illegal and invalid inasmuch as except stating that the petitioner had entered service in the year -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR 1984 as a Coolie and no further reasons are forthcoming in the impugned order.
10. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the fact that the petitioner had earlier been appointed as a Coolie in the year 1984 and has been taken into account by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 themselves while directing him to be regularised to the post of a Literate Assistant in their order dated 20.12.2000, in which the various correspondence, documents etc., including the order passed by this Court in WP 13686/2000 have been considered by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the purpose of considering the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of the post to a Literate Assistant.
11. It is also pertinent to note that the order dated 20.12.2000 is sought to be reviewed/recalled/revisited after a lapse of 14 years, which is impermissible in law since the same is beyond reasonable time as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav and Others Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (dead) through Legal Representatives and Others1, held as under;
"1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the High Court had reversed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Supaul, directing restoration of possession of the disputed land admeasuring about 10.47 ac to the appellants under the provisions of the Bihar Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951 (for short "the Act").
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Having done so, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal on the ground of unreasonable delay in applying for restoration of the land. The few dates necessary for deciding this issue are as follows.
3. On 13-8-1942, the suit land was sold in auction in execution of the rent decree. The suit land was then put in possession of the appellant(s)' predecessor. In execution, the land was purchased by one Babu Md. Abdus Samad. Thereafter, the land appeared to have changed hands four times.1
2017 (6) SCALE 459 = (2018) 12 SCC 527
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR
4. In 1951, the State of Bihar enacted the Act. The Act provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers i.e. raiyats, which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of rent between 1st day of January 1939, and 31st day of December, 1950. This was operational due to floods in Kosi River which made agricultural operations impossible.
5. The appellants did not take any steps for restoration of the land till 4-5-1975. On that date, one Gonar Yadav, son of recorded tenant Chanchal Yadav, filed a petition for restoration of the disputed land under Section 3 of the Act. Eventually, after an earlier remand, when the matter was pending in appeal, being Appeals Nos. 540 of 1978-1979, it was dismissed in default on 7-9-1980. It was again restored on 23-12-1980, but again dismissed for default on 23-3-1983.
6. An application for restoration was moved after 16 years on 9-8-1999 and was allowed without notice to the respondents. Eventually, the Additional Collector on 27-12-2000, allowed the restoration of the disputed land in favour of the appellants.
7. A writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 25-3-2004. A letters patent appeal preferred by the respondents was, however, allowed. That
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR judgment is in appeal before us at the instance of the appellants who had been denied the restoration of land. It is obvious from the periods of time mentioned above that even after the Act was passed in 1951, the appellants filed a petition for restoration of the disputed land on 4-5-1975 i.e. after a period of about 24 years. Thereafter, when the appeal filed by them was dismissed on 23-8-1983, the appellants applied for restoration on 9-8-1999 after a period of 16 years of such dismissal.
8. We find that there is inordinate, unexplained and unjustified delay on the part of the appellants in firstly, making an application for restoration of land after a period of 24 years after such a right is said to have accrued to them and, then in making an application for restoration after a period of 16 years when the matter was dismissed in default.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that the delay must be overlooked because the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to bring relief to farmers who had been dispossessed during the proscribed period. The reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma, where this Court held that in a motor accident which took place on 18-12-1989, a claim petition barred by time but filed on 2-11-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR 1995, after limitation itself was removed from the statute was maintainable. This Court held that there could be no resort to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 even though no period of limitation was prescribed. Accordingly, the Court held that the claim petition could not be rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation, after the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which had provided a period of six months. This view was taken having regard to the purpose of the statute. We, however, find that the judgment relied on has no application to the present case. It is a settled law where the statute does not provide for a period of limitation, the provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time.
10. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn., "reasonable time" is explained as follows:
"That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not to suffer."
Thus, time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve rights and advantages a party possesses, but equally to protect each party from the losses he ought not to suffer. Thus, whether an action has been taken within a reasonable time, must also be viewed from the point of view of the party who might suffer losses.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR
11. In the instant case, we find that the High Court had observed as follows:
"The auction-sale took place in 1942, the application for restoration of the lands was first made in 1975 and the appeal from it was dismissed for default in 1983. In the meanwhile, the disputed lands changed hands twice and were in the possession of the appellant-writ petitioners from 1962 and 1986. Such a long-settled position could only be upset for some very compelling reasons and on making out an extremely strong case for restoration of the appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest anything remotely like that. Secondly, the action of the Additional Collector in restoring the appeal even without any notice to the appellant-writ petitioners was clearly illegal and in contravention of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act."
The High Court was clearly right in the view it had taken.
12. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that power of the Additional Collector for restoration of lands could have been exercised suo motu and since no limitation was prescribed for exercise of such power, the delay in this case may be overlooked. This submission presupposes that where the power can be exercised suo motu, such exercise may be undertaken at any time. The submission is directly contrary to a decision of this Court in Collector v. D. Narsing Rao where this Court affirmed the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Para '17' of the judgment reads as follows: (D. Narsing Rao case, SCC p. 706, para
17)
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR "17.... that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law."
Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention.
13. In our view, where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo motu or on the application of the parties, within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, what is reasonable time would depend on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the statute. In the case before us, we are clear that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time, particularly, in view of the fact that the land was transferred several times during this period, obviously, in the faith that it is not encumbered by any rights.
14. We are of the view that merely because the legislation is beneficial and no limitation is prescribed, the rights acquired by persons cannot be ignored lightly and proceedings cannot be initiated after unreasonable delay as observed by this Court in Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand [Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 8 SCC 340].
15. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the appellants may apply for return of the compensation and damages deposited by them."
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR
12. A perusal of the impugned order dated 26.04.2014 at Annexure-J will clearly indicate that there is absolutely no whisper as to the long inordinate, unexplained, unjustified delay and laches on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in passing the impugned order after a lapse of almost 14 years and which is clearly illegal and arbitrary, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
13. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for seeking regularization with effect from 02.05.1993 and not from 02.06.2000 is concerned, the said aspect of the matter would necessarily have to be reconsidered by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in this regard.
14. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR
(ii) Impugned order dated 26.04.2014 at Annexure-J, is hereby set aside.
(iii) The order dated 20.12.2000 at
Annexure-E regularizing the
services of the petitioner as Group 'C' employee (Literate Assistant), is hereby upheld and confirmed.
(iv) The matter is remitted back for
reconsideration afresh to the
limited/restricted extent of deciding as to whether the services of the petitioner was to be regularized from 02.06.2000 as held in Annexure-E or from 02.05.1993 as contended by the petitioner in the category Group 'C' as a Literate Assistant.
(v) The respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall consider the claim of the petitioner
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11401 WP No. 106328 of 2014 HC-KAR for regularization from 02.05.1993, and pass appropriate orders only in this regard, as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SMM / Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23