Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.16813 OF 2018 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O A. RAMANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BOODIGERE CROSS,
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.N. SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOALR, KOLAR DISTRICT -563 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION,
KOLAR-563 101.
2
4. MUNIYAMMA
SINCE DECEASED HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
SRI R. THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O RAMAIAH, NIDARAMANGALA VILLAGE,
TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.
5. FIROZ KHAN
S/O MOHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
KONDASHETTIHALLI, TEKAL HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
6. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
D/O NAGIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
MALUR TOWN, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1-R3
SRI. SUNI S RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-4
R-4 & R-5 SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.3.2019)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2018 IN RA.SC.ST
5/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT; DECLARE THAT THE APPEAL OF THE
FOURTH RESPONDENT WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS IT
WAS FILED AFTER LAPSE OF 25 YEARS AND THE SAME IS
BARRED BY LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.12.2021, COMING ON FOR
3
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2018 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
The land bearing Sy.No.167 to an extent of 4
acres situated at Agara Village originally belonged to one Muniamma under grant order dated 25.11.1960. The said land was sold by Smt. Muniamma in favour of respondent No.5 under registered sale deed dated 22.6.1966. Respondent No.5 in turn had sold the said land in favour respondent No.6 under registered sale deed dated 5.9.1985. Respondent No.6 sold the land in favour of the petitioner on 5.3.1995.
2.1. On the strength of the registered sale deed dated 5.3.1995, the land was transferred in the name 4 of the petitioner and the petitioner is in possession of the land in question. Respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 1985 before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner.
Respondent No.3 rejected the application filed by respondent No.4 vide order dated 3.9.1985. The legal representative of respondent No.4 being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 allowed the appeal vide order dated 20.8.2014.
2.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.50242/2014. This Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 3.7.2015 and remitted the matter to respondent No.2 and directed respondent No.2 to examine whether the matter can be examined after such a delay. After remand, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order condoning the delay of more than 26 years in filing the appeal. Being 5 aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and the learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has committed an error in condoning the delay of more than 26 years. He further submits that respondent No.4 has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. He further submits that the delay defeats equity. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 submits that respondent No.2 was justified in passing the impugned order. He further submits that respondent No.3 has not communicated the order. Hence there is a delay of 26 years in filing 6 the appeal. He further submits that respondent No.2 was justified in passing the impugned order and submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. At the outset it is noticed that by the impugned order, respondent No.2 has condoned the delay of more than 26 years in preferring the appeal by respondent No.4. While condoning the delay respondent No.2 has observed that there is no record to show that the order passed by respondent No.3 was communicated to respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 has not taken such contention in the affidavit enclosed to the application for condonation of delay. Without there being any averments, the 7 respondent No.2 has committed an error in recording the said finding which is contrary to the records.
8. I have gone through the affidavit filed by respondent No.4. The averments made in the affidavit for condonation of delay are that the original grantee died and the legal representative i.e. respondent No.4 herein was a minor at that time and therefore, has not filed the appeal against the order passed by respondent No.3 within time. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by respondent No.4, the age of respondent No.4 is shown as 45 years. The respondent No.4 has not assigned any sufficient cause for filing the appeal after more than 26 years before respondent No.2. Respondent No.4 was aged about 45 years at the time of filing the appeal before respondent No.2. If at all respondent No.4 was a minor at the time of passing an order by respondent No.3, respondent No.4 ought to have preferred an 8 appeal within three years from the date of attaining the age of majority as per Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Respondent No.4 has filed appeal before respondent No.2 after a lapse of more than 26 years from the date of attaining the age of majority. As discussed above, respondent No.4 has not shown any sufficient cause in filing the appeal at a belated stage. The courts while considering an application for condonation of delay, must exercise the discretion judiciously. In the instant case, respondent No.2 has not exercised the discretion judiciously while passing the impugned order.
9. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasi Rao v. Reddy Sridevi and Ors (Civil Appeal No.7696/2021 disposed of 16.12.2021), it is held that the Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The courts 9 help those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights".
10. The said judgment squarely applies to the present case in hand. Thus, the period of delay of 26 years has not at all been explained. Respondent No.2 has committed an error in passing the impugned order.
11. In view of the above the following order is passed :
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned order dated 28.2.2018 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the appeal No. RA.SC.ST.5/2015-16 stands dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
SD/-
JUDGE rs