High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed over three decades after the original order was passed. The court held that the petition was a speculative exercise and barred by inordinate delay and laches, citing Apex Court precedents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION No.20495/2007 (LR)
BETWEEN
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 101.
... PETITIONERS
(By SRI. SURESH N NAVALAGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND
2
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KAMATHAGI VILLAGE, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAMATHAGI VILLAGE, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAMATHAGI VILLAGE, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAMATHAGI VILLAGE, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
3
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAMATHAGI VILLAGE, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2(a, b, d and e) AND R4 ARE SERVED UNREPRESENTED;
4
VIDE DATE 27.03.2012 PETITION DISMISSED AGAINST R2(c, f and i); R3 ABATED;
SRI. M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/12/1980 IN CASE NO.KLR 154 /082A, PASSED BY FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE ‘A’ AS ILLEGAL, ERRONEOUS ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, RESULTING IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 05/12/1980 in case No.KLR 154/082A, passed by first respondent, vide Annexure ‘A’ to the writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of land bearing Sy.No.65/A measuring 1 acre 4 guntas and Sy.No.64/1 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas
5
situated at Kamatagi Village, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District. The petitioners’ grandfather had let out these lands to the second respondent [since deceased] on an agreement to “ Undu biduva kararu’’ . After the completion of the lease, the petitioners’ grandfather was cultivating personally. The petitioners’ grandfather was not able to look after the lands in question due to ill-health. Therefore, the petitioner’s father, Chinnappa started cultivating the lands. It is stated that the petitioners’ father Shri Chinnappa was married to Smt.Shakunthawwa. After the death of Smt.Shakunthawwa, the petitioners’ father got married again to one Smt.Mahanthawwa. It is stated by the petitioners that their father pre-deceased their grandfather. At the time of death of petitioners’ father, the petitioners were young. The petitioners also contended that their grandfather had let out the lands to the 2nd respondent for a sum of Rs.600/- on the basis of “ Undu Biduva Kararu’’ . The 2nd respondent was
6
cultivating the lands. The 2nd respondent had filed Form No.7 in the year 1979-80 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.65/A measuring 1 acre 4 guntas and Sy.No.64/1 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas situated at Kamatagi Village, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District. The said application was considered by the Land Tribunal vide Order dated 5/12/1980 granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.2. This order is assailed in the Writ Petition.
7
He therefore submitted that the order passed by the land Tribunal is contrary to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The impugned order is non speaking order.
to delay in filing the writ petition after 27 long years, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the death of their mother Smt.Shakunthawwa, their father Sri Chinnappa married to Smt.Mahanthawwa and after the death of Chinnappa, Smt.Mahanthawwa remarried to one Sri Adiveppa and started living with him at Devoor Village, Bijapur Taluk. Since there was nobody to take care of the petitioners, petitioners had to leave the place and started living with their maternal grandfather. It is also submitted that after the death of petitioners’ father, their step mother Smt. Mahanthawwa was taking care of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were young and were not aware of the proceedings and
8
therefore they could not challenge the order in time. Hence, there is a delay. He also submitted that the delay is bona fide and unintentional and the petitioners have very good case on merits. Therefore, the delay may be condoned and writ petition may be allowed.
9
recorded. Before granting occupancy rights, the land Tribunal has considered the matter and on 5/12/1980, the land Tribunal has passed the order granting occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent.
10
decisions that State claims ought not to be entertained by High Courts exercising Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
a) In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332 (State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty) it is held that, consideration of an application where delay and laches could be attributed against a person who approaches in a writ petition is discussed by stating that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to writ jurisdiction, however, the Doctrine of Limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions could be dismissed at the initial stage on the ground of delay and laches.
b) In the case of Shankar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. M.Prabhakar & Ors., (2011 AIR SCW
11
3033), the Apex Court at para 53 has given the relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches in approaching the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same reads as follows;
“53. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) there is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its owns facts. (2) The principle on which the court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The
12
satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay.”
c) Reference can also be made to another
decision of the Apex Court in the case of (1996) 6 SCC
445 (State of Rajasthan & Others vs. D.R.Laxmi &
Others) , wherein it has cautioned the High Court not to entertain the writ petitions where there is inordinate delay while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13
d) In fact, in S.S.Balu and another vs. State
of Kerala and others, (2009) 2 SCC 479 , it has been held that delay defeats equity and that relief can be denied on the ground of delay alone even though relief is granted to other similarly situated persons who approach the Courts in time.
applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Registry to send the original records to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite a delay of over three decades in filing the petition challenging the Land Tribunal order.
Whether the Doctrine of Laches and delay bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case.
Sri Sangappa Mallappa Naidar Since Deceased by His LRS
The Secretary Land Tribunal Hungund
Sri Gadigappa Siddappa Siraguppi Since Deceased by His LRS
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
