Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Smt. Kamalamma

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2018WA/805/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

After noting that similar appeals from the same underlying order were previously dismissed on merits, the High Court of Karnataka held that the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting revisional proceedings due to excessive delay. Consequently, the present writ appeals were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals and pending interlocutory applications for stay were dismissed.

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Kamalamma — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

WA No.805/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT APPEAL NO.805/2018 (KLR-RR-SUR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶11

REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 5^TH FLOOR, MULTI STORED BUILDING,

¶12

DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,

¶13

BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,

¶15

BENGALURU-560009.

¶16

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM-560036.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR,

¶18

BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560036.

¶19

...APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA.)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SMT.KAMALAMMA,

¶23

W/O.RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/A. BANDE BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560036.

¶24

SRI N.DEVARAJU, S/O NARAYANAPPA,

¶25

AGED 41 YEARS,

¶26

¶27

WA No.805/2018

¶28

KANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER.

¶29

SRI MUNIYAPPA,

¶30

S/O CHIKKAMMA,

¶31

AGED 51 YEARS,

¶32

SRI VENKATESH,

¶33

S/O MUNINANJAPPA, AGED 36 YEARS,

¶34

SRI MAHESH

¶35

S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶36

SRI ASHWATAPPA, S/O LATE DONYAPPA, AGED 46 YEARS,

¶37

SRI Y.N.MANJUNATH, S/O NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶38

SRI PATALAPPA

¶39

S/O KAMPANNA,

¶40

AGED 39 YEARS,

¶41

SRI MUNIRAJAPPA, S/O DODDA MUNITAYAPPA, AGED 54 YEARS,

¶42

SL.NO.2 TO 9 ARE R/AT YERAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDA GUBBI POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST-560036.

¶43

...RESPONDENTS

¶44

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 03.08.2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28556/2010 (KLR-RR-SUR) AND ETC.

¶45

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA No.805/2018

JUDGMENT

Having regard to the submissions made, the matter is considered on its merits, while ignoring the question of delay.

¶50

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants does not dispute the position that similar intra Court appeals, being W.A.Nos.804/2018 and 806/2018, arising out of the common order dated 03.08.2017, have already been considered and dismissed by this Court on 30.05.2018.

¶51

In the said judgment dated 30.05.2018, with reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Another V. D.Narsing Rao and Others: AIR 2015 SC 1021 and the findings as recorded by the learned Single Judge in the present case, this Court has said, -

¶52

“We are unable to find any error or infirmity in the order so passed by the learned Single Judge in these matters. In the case of D.Narasinga Rao (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expounded on the principles relating to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and while holding that exercise of such powers ought to be within a reasonable period, the Hon’ble Supreme Court said,-

¶53

“To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law.

¶54

¶55

WA No.805/2018

¶56

Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.”

¶57

The principles aforesaid directly apply to the present cases. The position of record that had continued since the year 1970 could not have been altered by way of summary proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act. Though prima facie doubts have been indicated by the Special Deputy Commissioner, but the learned Single Judge appears right in observing that on such issues, the matter ought to have been taken up in appropriate proceedings for enquiring into the facts and could not have been concluded by way of the proceedings of revision under Section 136(3) of the Act.

¶58

In an overall appreciation of the matter, the learned Single Judge appears justified in disapproving the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, while still leaving it open for the authorities concerned to establish their claims and assertions in accordance with law before the competent Court. We find no reason to consider

¶59

¶60

WA No.805/2018

¶61

interference in the just and proper view so taken by the learned Single Judge in these cases.

¶62

In view of the above, the writ appeals stand dismissed.

¶63

The pending interlocutory applications for stay also stand disposed of.”

¶64

The position aforesaid applies to the present appeal too.

¶65