Karnataka High Court
Vinod Kumar Anwarkar vs The Government Of Karnataka And Ors on 12 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869
WP No.202270 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.202270 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
VINOD KUMAR ANWARKAR
S/O BRAHMAGNANI ANWARKAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
R/O: PLOT NO.2-91 0/15/2/67,
VIBHUTHI NAGAR,
NEAR MAHARSHI, VIDYA MANDIR SCHOOL,
KUSNOOR ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
COURT OF VIKAS SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPT. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,
1ST FLOOR, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OLD STATION ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869
WP No.202270 of 2021
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. MANOJ
S/O MARUTI KALNOORKAR,
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.LIG-60, 2ND STAGE,
ADARSH NAGAR,
KALABURAGI - 585 104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., H.C.G.P. FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI SYED FAYAZUDDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER IN THE LIKE
NATURE QUASHING THE LAYOUT PLAN IN RESPECT OF
SY.NO.102/4, MEASURING 03 ACRES 04 GUNTAS WITH
LAYOUT MAP APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY AN
ORDER DATED 30.03.2017 BEARING NO.
¸ÀASÉå:£ÀUÁæAiÉÆøÀ¤PÀ/«£Áå¸À/¸ÀtÆÚgÀ/2016-17/2324-28 VIDE ANNEXURES-F
AND G AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869
WP No.202270 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the layout plan in respect of land bearing Sy.No.102/4, measuring 03 acres 04 guntas with the layout map approved by the 3rd respondent vide order dated 30.03.2017 at Annexures-F and G.
2. Brief facts leading to rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing Sy.No.100/1, measuring 05 acres 35 guntas situated at Sannur village, Aurad(B) Hobli, Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi.
The said land is bounded by Cart road towards North, Hissa No.2 towards East, Sy.No.101 towards South, Cart road towards West. The petitioner got converted his land into non-agricultural land vide memorandum dated 30.08.2021. It is contended that, the 5th respondent is the owner of land in Sy.No.102/4 measuring 03 acres 08 guntas and he got converted the said land into non-
agricultural for residential purpose by an official -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869 WP No.202270 of 2021 memorandum dated 21.01.2017. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent approved the layout map by approval dated 30.03.2017 with the map permitting the formation of sites in the public cart road. As per the village map, the cart road is demarcating boundary between Sy.No.103, 104, 102, 101, 99 and 100. The 3rd respondent while approving the layout map belongs to 5th respondent, alters/changes the cart road and the cart road has been converted into residential sites and the original cart road has been changed connecting to Sy.No.99 as against Sy.No.100. The cart road as per the original village map is the boundary demarcating the land Sy.Nos.99 and 100. The extinction of rights of the public and individuals in or any public road etc. under Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1966 and Rule 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules mandates that the Deputy Commissioner before extinction of any public road should issue a public notice inviting objections from the public at large and thereafter submit the report to the Government for extinction of the road, street and lane etc. The -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869 WP No.202270 of 2021 petitioner aggrieved by the technical approval of the layout map in respect of land Sy.No.102/4 permitting the formation of sites in house sites in the cart road, has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and also learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, before approving the layout map, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not followed the procedures prescribed under Section 68 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rule 97 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and permitted the 5th respondent for formation of housing sites on the cart road without jurisdiction and authority of law. He submits that the official memorandum issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 21.01.2017 converting the land of Sy.No.102/4 to the extent of 03 acres 04 guntas out of 03 acres 08 guntas, excluding 04 guntas pot kharab 'B' cart -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869 WP No.202270 of 2021 road. The 3rd and 4th respondents - authorities knowing very well that the cart road which is a pot kharab 'B' land which is a cart road have permitted the conversion of the said cart road and the approval of the said layout map is illegal and contrary. He also submits that, the approval of the layout map permitting the formation of the house is contrary to the Official Memorandum of conversion dated 21.01.2017. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the layout map was approved on 30.03.2017 and this writ petition is filed in the year 2021 and therefore contend that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is at belated stage. She further submits that after formation of layout, much water has already flown and the fact that the petitioner though being the adjacent land owner and the layout was approved in the year 2017, the petitioner has not raised any objection at the time of formation of sites in the land bearing Sy.No.102/4. Hence, -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869 WP No.202270 of 2021 the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. She further submits that the petitioner has not explained any sufficient cause for filing writ petition at belated stage. Hence, on these grounds she prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 adopts the argument of learned High Court Government Pleader.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. There is no dispute in regard to the petitioner being the owner of land Sy.No.100/1, measuring 05 acres 35 guntas and the petitioner got converted the said land into non-agricultural land for residential purpose by Official Memorandum dated 30.08.2021 and the 5th respondent is the owner of land Sy.No.102/4 measuring 03 acres 08 guntas and the 5th respondent also got converted the said land into non-agricultural land vide Official Memorandum dated 21.01.2017. The 5th respondent after getting the -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869 WP No.202270 of 2021 land converted into non-agricultural land submitted an application for approval of layout map before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent after due enquiry approved the layout map vide the approval dated 30.03.2017 and the layout map was also approved. The petitioner being the adjacent land owner is not aware about the formation of sites in the land bearing Sy.No.102/4 by 5th respondent cannot be countenanced. The petitioner has not raised any objection from 2017 till filing of the subject writ petition i.e., on 23.11.2021. I have perused the memorandum of writ petition wherein the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause for approaching the writ court at belated stage.
9. It is well settled principle of law that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an instance of exercise of jurisdiction in equity. Therefore, before considering the writ petition on merits, the doctrine of delay and latches would have to be adverted to while exercising the power under equity jurisdiction. The -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869 WP No.202270 of 2021 petitioner has filed writ petition after four years from the date of approval of the layout map in question. Apparently, the claim of the petitioner suffers from huge unexplained delay and latches and same cannot be entertained by this Court.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Orissa and another Vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in AIR 2011 SCW 1332, wherein it is held that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are to be dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and latches.
11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swaran Lata Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 4 SCC 532 held that when a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 2001 and award was passed in the year 2004 and the writ petitions filed for questioning the notification was in the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869 WP No.202270 of 2021 year 2009, have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Added to the above decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati and Ors. reported in AIR 1969 SC 329, wherein at para No.16, held 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 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
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869 WP No.202270 of 2021 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
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869 WP No.202270 of 2021 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."
12. Considering the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, if the petitioner's right was encouraged the petitioner ought to have approached this writ Court immediately but the petitioner did not approach the Court immediately and after lapse of more than four years, filed a writ petition and even in the writ petition, the petitioner has not explained the reasons for filing the writ petition at a belated stage. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4869 WP No.202270 of 2021 ii. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to agitate his grievance before the appropriate authority, if so advised.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 Ct;Vk