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.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:19185 WP No. 10745 of 2024
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. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:19185 WP No. 10745 of 2024
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, -5- NC: 2024:KHC:19185 WP No. 10745 of 2024 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 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:19185 WP No. 10745 of 2024 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37