Karnataka High Court
M Mayanna vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2023
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
-1-
WP No. 21400 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 21400 OF 2022 (KLR-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
M. MAYANNA
S/O LATE MUNIBYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT,
K.R PURAM,
BENGALURU 560036
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI H. K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by R DEEPA
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU 560001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU 560002
3. TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
-2-
WP No. 21400 of 2022
KRISHNA RAJPURAM,
BENGALURU 560036
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
K.R PURAM,
BENGALURU 560036
5. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE (BMTF),
N.R. CIRCLE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGLAURU 560001
6. B NANJUNDASETTY
S/O B .S CHANDRAIAHSETTY,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.6, KRISHNA COLONY,
GANGAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE,
BENGLAURU 560036
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO EVICT THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 FROM THE ENCROACHED LAND BEARING
SITUATED AT SANNATHAMMANAHALLI ALIAS
TUMBUCHETTYPALYA, KRISNARAJAPURAHOBLI, BENGALURU
EAST TALUK MEASURING 0.4.12 GUNTAS AND RECOVER THE
SAID LAND BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 21400 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for mandamus directing the respondents-authorities to evict respondent No.6 from the encroached land bearing Sy.No.46 situated at Sannathammanahalli, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East measuring 0.4.12 guntas.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The land bearing Sy.No.46 is a Government land and part of a lake is situated therein. The land belongs to Forest Department. Out of total land, an extent of 0.4.12 guntas was encroached upon and grabbed by respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 is an adjacent owner of land in Sy.No.47/3. Respondent No.3 initiated a suo moto proceedings by exercising powers under Section 39(ii) & Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and passed an order dated 17.04.2012. Respondent No.3 -4- WP No. 21400 of 2022 has not taken any action to recover the Government land pursuant to the order dated 17.04.2012. The petitioner submitted representation dated 24.05.2014, to respondent No.3, representation dated 03.08.2012 to respondent No.2 and representation dated 02.01.2015 to the Deputy Secretary seeking appropriate action. The petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents-authorities in evicting respondent No.6 from the encroached Government (Forest) land in Sy.No.46, has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question is a Government land and respondent No.6 encroached upon the Government (Forest) land. He submits that respondent No.3 has passed an order of eviction. Inspite of the order passed by respondent No.3, -5- WP No. 21400 of 2022 respondent No.6 has not vacated and delivered the possession. Hence he submits that the petitioner has submitted representations for implementation of the order passed by respondent No.3. Respondents-authorities have not considered the representation. Hence the petitioner has filed this PIL. Hence on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 submits that the order was passed by respondent No.3 in the year 2014 and petitioner has submitted the representation on 02.01.2015, and has filed the writ petition in the year 2022. Thus there is a delay of 7 years in filing the PIL. He submits that the petitioner has not explained the delay in filing the PIL at a belated stage. Hence he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. -6- WP No. 21400 of 2022
7. Respondent No.3 initiated a suo moto proceedings by exercising power under Section 39(ii) and Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. After holding an enquiry, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 17.04.2012, where a finding is recorded that respondent No.6 encroached upon the Government land illegally and directed respondent No.6 to handover the possession of said land. Inspite of the order passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.6 did not comply with the said order. Respondent No.3 after passing the order, has not taken any steps for implementation of the order dated 17.04.2012. Petitioner submitted representations on 03.08.2012, 24.05.2014 and 02.01.2015, to the respondents-authorities. The respondents-authorities have not taken any action on the representations submitted by the petitioner. The last representation was submitted by the petitioner on 02.01.2015, to the Deputy Secretary. Petitioner filed the writ petition on 27.10.2022. Petitioner approached this Court after lapse of more than 7 -7- WP No. 21400 of 2022 years from the date of submission of his last representation. Petitioner has not explained sufficient cause for filing the present PIL after lapse of more than 7 years.
8. Petitioner has not stated about his antecedents and credentials as required under Rule 11(b) of the High Court of Karnataka (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2018. There is no compliance of Rule 11(b) of the Rules of 2018.
9. The writ petition suffers from delay and laches. We may at this stage refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & OTHERS VS. T.T. MURALI BABU. It may be useful for us to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 16 and 17 which reads as under:
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but -8- WP No. 21400 of 2022 simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 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 scrutinize whether 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- WP No. 21400 of 2022
17. Having dealt with the doctrine of delay and laches, we shall presently proceed to deal with the doctrine of proportionality which has been taken recourse to by the High Court regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix. We think it appropriate to refer to some of the authorities which have been placed reliance upon by the High Court."
10. At the cost of repetition, there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Hence on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition (PIL). Hence we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to pay the Court fee within a period of one week from the date of this order.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RD