Petitioners challenged an order granting occupancy rights to a third party under the Land Reforms Act, alleging procedural flaws and fraud. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the delay of over 33 years amounted to laches and was not satisfactorily explained.
Writ petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
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 20T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.62196/2009 (LR)
BETWEEN:
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. BHAGYASHREE BHIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP, FOR R.1 AND R.2; R.3(A) – NOTICE SERVED, UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10/5/1976 PASSED IN NO.TNC.T.SR/893, BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ATHANI, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, AS BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the
impugned order dated 10.05.1976 in case No. TNC.T.SR/893 passed by land Tribunal, Athani, vide Annexure ‘B’.
3
as under:
It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.97/2A of Shedabal village, Athani Taluk, totally measuring 11 Acres 01 Gunta. The said land is agricultural land and it is an ancestral property of the petitioners and the same was enjoyed by their parents late Narsingh Takkudake and Smt.Gangubai Takkudake and thus the revenue entries are in their names. It is stated that the petitioners are personally cultivating the land in question and no one else and therefore, the land in question was never vested with the Government under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The father of the petitioners died and their mother being an illiterate and a rustic woman was not
4
aware of the procedural aspects and the
provisions of the Land Reforms Act.
However, the third respondent, who had no
semblance of right whatsoever nature and is totally unconnected with the above land, with a view to dupe the land by taking advantage of the illiteracy of their mother, filed Form No.7 claiming to be the tenant of the land in question to an extent of 3 Acres out of Sy.No.97/2A before the Land Tribunal. They also stated that no notices were issued and that the Land Tribunal without conducting enquiry as contemplated under section 48A of the Act and Rule 17 has granted the occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent.
In pursuance of the order of the land Tribunal, the Tahasildar, Athani, has issued Form No.10 to the 3rd respondent on 7.3.1981, thereby registering the 3rd respondent as occupant of the
5
land to an extent of 3 Acres. The order of the land Tribunal is assailed in this writ petition.
for the respective parties.
6
7
mutate his name in the revenue records and when he tried to dispossess and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioners. As such there is some delay/ laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court.
8
filed this writ petition only in the year 2009. There is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. He therefore submitted that the writ petition may be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
9
pleadings have not offered satisfactory explanation regarding delay and laches. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of this case, since in that decision, the delay was 14 years and the learned Judge had observed that the delay is explained. But in the present case, there is an inordinate delay of almost 33 years in filing the writ petition. Though there is pleading regarding delay, there is no satisfactory explanation regarding the delay and laches. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
10
hands to such persons, who approach the Court after several years, can be relied upon. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in several decisions that state claims ought not to be entertained by the 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
11
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 3033), the Apex Court at paragraph No.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
12
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 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 State of Rajasthan & Others vs. D.R.Laxmi & Others (1996 6 SCC 445), 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mrk/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed after an inordinate delay of 33 years should be entertained despite claims of bona fide error and illiteracy.
Whether the doctrine of laches applies to bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether acceptable explanation exists for the delay in challenging the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahadev Venkagouda vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶6
LAWS (KAR) 1997-1-25
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata MohantyRelied on¶58
2011 AIR SCW 1332 · Who else cites this
Shankar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. M.Prabhakar & Ors.Relied on¶61
2011 AIR SCW 3033 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan & Others vs. D.R.Laxmi & OthersRelied on¶66
1996 6 SCC 445 · Who else cites this
S.S.Balu and another vs. State of Kerala and othersRelied on¶69
(2009) 2 SCC 479 · Who else cites this
Annappa S/o Narsingh Takkudake and Others
State of Karnataka (Rep by its Secretary Dept. of Revenue)
Land Tribunal Athani
Shivshankar Dundayya Swamy since dead by LRS
Dundayya Shivashnakr Swamy
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
