Karnataka High Court
Balawwa D/O Yamnappa Madar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 20 March, 2018
Bench: Vineet Kothari, R.Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT APPEAL No.200512/2016 (LR)
Between:
Balawwa
D/o Yamanappa Madar
Age: 70 years
Occ: Household work & Agriculture
R/o Benal (R.S),
Tq. Basavana Bagewadi
Dist: Vijayapur
By her PA Holder/daughter
Yallawwa D/o Balawwa Madar
Age: 38 years, Occ: Coolie & Agriculture
R/o Benal (R.S), Tq. Basavana Bagewadi
Dist: Vijayapur.
... Appellant
(By Sri D.P.Ambekar, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Revenue
Vikas Soudha,
Date of order: 20.03.2018 WA 200512/2016
Balawwa Vs The State of Karnataka and others
2
Bengaluru-560 001
2. The Land Tribunal
Basavana Bagewadi
Tq. Basavana Bagewadi
Dist: Vijaypur-586203
By its Chairman
3. Shiriyappa S/o Somarao Desai
Since deceased by his widow
Smt. Vatsala W/o Shiriyappa Desai
Aged about: 60 years
Occ: Household work
R/o Vandal, Tq. Basavana Bagewadi
Dist: Vijayapur-586203
4. Babasaheb S/o Somarao Desai
Since deceased by his widow
Smt. Shakuntala
W/o Babasaheb Desai
Age: 60 years
Occ: Household work
R/o Alamatti-586101
5. Ramsomappa S/o Ningappa Desai
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Benal (R.S)
Vijayapur-586101
6. Raosaheb S/o Kasirao Desai
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Benal (R.S)
Vijayapur-586101
7. Akash S/o Sangappa Talwar
Age: 12 years, Occ: Student
R/o Benal (R.S)
Tq. Basavana Bagewadi
Dist: Vijayapur-586203
(Being minor represented by
Date of order: 20.03.2018 WA 200512/2016
Balawwa Vs The State of Karnataka and others
3
his father/natural guardian
respondent No.8)
8. Sangappa Hanamappa Talwar
Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Benal (R.S),
Tq. Basavana Bagewadi
Dist: Vijayapur-586203.
... Respondents
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the
impugned final order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing WP No.202000/2016 filed
by the appellant herein and consequently quash the
Annexure-E, viz the order passed by the Land Tribunal
TNC:SR:254/75 dated 17.12.1993 and all further
proceedings in pursuance of the same.
This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, VINEET KOTHARI J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Mr. D.P.Ambekar, Advocate for Appellant
1. The appellant Balawwa D/o Yamanappa Madar, the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge, has filed the present intra-court appeal against the order of learned Single Judge dated 03.10.2016 dismissing her Writ Petition No.202000/2016 (Balawwa vs. The State of Karnataka and others). Date of order: 20.03.2018 WA 200512/2016
Balawwa Vs The State of Karnataka and others 4
2. The learned Single Judge was pleased to deny the relief to the petitioner solely on the ground of delay and laches in approaching the Court by way of the writ petition and the delay was as huge as 23 years computed from the date of impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 17.12.1993, by which the Land Tribunal, Basavana Bagewadi, conferred the occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.8 - Sangappa Hanamanppa Talwar, legal representative of deceased H.R. Talwar in respect of 6 acres and 33 guntas of land comprised in consolidated Sy.No.70 and 16 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.294 of Benal village and 18 acres and 15 guntas of land comprised in consolidated Sy.No.166 of Vandal village of Basavana Bagewadi taluk.
3. The explanation furnished before the learned Single Judge for the said delay of 23 years by the petitioner-appellant was that the petitioner-appellant Date of order: 20.03.2018 WA 200512/2016 Balawwa Vs The State of Karnataka and others 5 came to know of the occupancy rights conferred in favour of respondent No.8 only when the respondent No.8 got the said revenue entries mutated in favour of his son Akash, respondent No.7.
4. The learned Single Judge was pleased to observe that the said explanation was not adequate and worth believing and no detailed facts about how respondent No.8 perpetrated any fraud and when the petitioner came to know of it, etc., nothing was averred clearly, nor established properly for explaining the said huge delay of 23 years. The learned Single Judge also expressed the apprehension that such belated claims, if entertained, might adversely affect third party rights as well and therefore the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
5. Reiterating similar grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant urged before us also that the petitioner-appellant being an illiterate lady of rural folks Date of order: 20.03.2018 WA 200512/2016 Balawwa Vs The State of Karnataka and others 6 was kept in dark about the change of revenue entries and soon upon coming to know of the fact against her, she approached the Court by way of aforesaid writ petition.
6. We are not impressed with the said submission, inasmuch as, a belated challenge is laid to such occupancy rights conferred in favour of respondent No.8 could not have been entertained by the learned Single Judge, that too in the absence of any cogent contra evidence in favour of the petitioner herself establishing her own rights over the land in question. Mere claims made and challenge laid to opponents' rights over the land in question do not confer any right on the person to challenge the revenue entries in favour of the respondent.
7. The Land Tribunal, way back on 17.12.1993, had conferred such occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.8. The petitioner simply slept Date of order: 20.03.2018 WA 200512/2016 Balawwa Vs The State of Karnataka and others 7 over the matter for all these years and nowhere any whisper was raised against the occupancy rights of the respondent No.8. After 23 years, suddenly she wakes up and lays a challenge to the said order of Land Tribunal, which, in our considered opinion, was rightly not entertained by the learned Single Judge.
8. The equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India enures to the benefit of vigilant litigants, who approach the Court with clean hands and with relevant evidence. The foundationless claims or unfounded challenges cannot be investigated and enquired into in writ jurisdiction after the lapse of long periods. That is bound to result in adversely affecting the rights of other persons whose rights got crystallized over a long period and over such long period even third party rights might have been created and therefore, the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in not entertaining the said writ Date of order: 20.03.2018 WA 200512/2016 Balawwa Vs The State of Karnataka and others 8 petition are perfectly justifiable reasons and we do not find any ground to upset the same.
9. Therefore, we do not find any force in the present intra-court appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
A copy of this order shall be sent to the respondents.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
swk