Karnataka High Court
Sri K K Srikanth vs State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2020
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B. M. Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11337/2020 (LR)
BETWEEN :
SRI. K.K. SRIKANTH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O. K. SRIKISHAN,
RESIDING AT NO.204,
III BLOCK, 13TH MAIN,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU -560 010.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REVENUE SECRETARY.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 16.11.2004, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A, ORDER
IN APPEAL NO.143/2005 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B DATED
23.11.2011 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (LAND
REFORMS) AT BANGALORE AND THE ORDER IN
REV.MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.10/2015 DATED 8.7.2019
IN KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the second respondent's order dated 16.11.2004 in No.LRF (83) 3/2003-04 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order dated 8.7.2019 in Rev.Misc.No.10/2015. The Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order dated 6.11.2004 has opined that the petitioner has purchased 16 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.168 of B.M.Kaval village, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South taluk under different sale deeds executed in his favour on 19.01.2000 in violation of the provision of Section 79 (A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Assistant Commissioner has opined that there is violation of the 3 aforesaid provisions because the petitioner has obtained prior permission of the competent authority under Section 80 of the aforesaid Act furnishing false information. The petitioner has impugned the Assistant Commissioner's order in an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in appeal No.143/2005. This appeal being listed on 23.11.2011 is dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner has filed Rev.Misc.No.10/2015 for restoration of the appeal, and because the said petition is belated, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and consequentially, the appeal by the impugned order dated 8.7.2019.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had entrusted the appeal to his learned counsel on the assurance that the learned counsel would 4 attend the case and diligently prosecute the appeal. The petitioner bona fide believed in such assurance. However, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the Tribunal because of his ill-health and the petitioner could not pursue with his counsel. The Tribunal has refused to accept the cause shown by the petitioner concluding that the cause shown is neither satisfactory nor convincing, and the delay is not properly explained. The learned counsel submits that in the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner, the Tribunal could not have concluded that either the petitioner is negligent or the reasons offered for condonation of delay is insufficient or inadequate: the petitioner was neither malafide nor lackadaisical. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance 2020, and the Notification issued by the Government thereafter clarifying that all proceedings initiated under the erstwhile provisions of Section 79 (A) and 79 (B) that are pending as of the date of the Ordinance would abate. 5 The petitioner, who has impugned the order of forfeiture by the Assistant commissioner because of an alleged violation of the provisions of Section 79(A) of the Act, is prosecuting such initiation in pursuing the statutory remedies as well as the remedy available under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In these circumstances, this Court may set aside the Tribunal's order rejecting the application for condonation of delay and pass suitable orders to serve the interest of justice and equity.
3. The petitioner's appeal is dismissed on 23.11.2011 for non-prosecution, and the petitioner has filed the revision miscellaneous petition for restoration of the appeal in exercise of the remedy available under regulation 28-A of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's Regulation Act, 1956 along with the application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of about 4 years in filing the application for restoration, when indisputably, the petitioner had to file such application within 30 days from the date of dismissal for non-prosecution. The 6 delay is explained by stating that the petitioner's learned counsel , who had assured him that he would appear before the Tribunal and diligently prosecute the appeal, could not appear before the Tribunal because of his ill-health. The petitioner who filed his appeal in the year 2005, was under
the bona fide impression that the appeal was pending consideration until he could ascertain that in the year 2014 the appeal was dismissed. When the cause shown is examined in the facts and circumstances of the case, the cause offered would not appear vitiated by mala fides. It is settled that the Courts must not take too pedantic a approach and must lean in favour of condonation of delay so long as in the Court's opinion the proceedings are not vitiated by either mala fides or fraud, or a third party rights are created. This Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the cause offered in the light of these circumstances, and as such, the Tribunal's impugned order dated 8.7.2019 cannot be sustained. Presently, the 7 provisions of the Karnataka Land (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 is issued omitting the provisions of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and there is a follow up notification clarifying that the pending proceedings would abate. As such, it would be just and reasonable to allow the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application with the second respondent for affirmation of the lapse of the proceedings. Therefore, the following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.7.2019 in Rev.Misc.No.10/2015 by the Tribunal is set aside and instead of restoring the appeal for decision on merit before the Tribunal, the petitioner is reserved liberty to make a representation with the second respondent relying upon the Notification dated 11.9.2020 for issuance of appropriate endorsement affirming abatement of the proceedings initiated for forfeiture. The 8 petitioner shall make such representation within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA