Dismissed

Sri. Kurubara Sunkanna S/O Dodda Linganna, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2020WP/68742/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a 1985 Land Tribunal order denying occupancy rights in inam land. The court rejected the petition as a speculative exercise due to a 25-year delay and failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the laches.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches without reconsideration of the merits of the occupancy rights claim.

Sri. Kurubara Sunkanna S/O Dodda Linganna, Vs the State… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^{T H} DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.68742/2010 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI KURUBARA SUNKANNA S/O DODDA LINGANNA, AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O VANENOOR, TQ. & DIST. BALLARI.

¶9

... PETITIONER (BY SRI T. BASAVANAGOUD, ADVOCATE.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BALLARI, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN/ SPECIAL A.C., LAND REFORMS, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶13

THE TAHSHILDAR, BALLARI (ARTISAN INAM), DIST: BALLARI.

¶14

BADIGERA MARI ACHAR S/O BASAPPA ACHAR AGE: MAJOR,

¶15

¶16

R/O. VANENOOR VILLAGE (POST), TQ: & DIST: BALLARI.

¶17

BADIGERA MARIENNA ACHAR S/O. BASAPPA ACHAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. VANENOOR VILLAGE (POST), TQ: & DIST: BALLARI.

¶18

BADAGERA SANNA MARI ACHAR S/O. BASAPPA ACHAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. VANENOOR VILLAGE (POST), TQ: & DIST: BALLARI.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI V.S.KALASOORMATH, HCGP, FOR R.1 TO R.3; R.4 TO R.6 – NOTICE SERVED.)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16/10/1985, MADE IN NO. LRM.4434, 4480, 4486, 4472/1983-1984, PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BALLARI, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO PETITIONER IN SY.NO.163 OF VANENOOR VILLAGE, TALUK AND DISTRICT BELLARY (ANNEXURE-F), ETC.,.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the impugned

¶25

order dated 16.10.1985 passed by Land Tribunal,

¶26

¶27

Bellary, in No.LRM 4434, 4480, 4486, 4472/19831984 (Annexure F).

¶28

Briefly stated the facts of the case are

¶29

as under:

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.163 of Vanenoor village, Taluk and District Ballari, is a Badigara Inam Land and that the petitioner herein belongs to Badigara profession and he is in actual possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the said land measuring to an extent of 4 acres right from 1967-68. Apart from this, the petitioner also stated that he has purchased the said land by way of abundant caution by way of registered sale deed.

¶31

The petitioner contended that he is entitled for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said land under the provisions of the Karnataka

¶32

¶33

Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. Accordingly, he filed Form No.1 for grant of occupancy rights on 29.3.1984, vide Annexure A.

¶34

The respondents No.4 to 6 also applied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land claiming different extents in the very same survey No.163 of Vanenoor village, Taluk and District Ballari, on 27.3.1984, vide Annexure-B. According to the petitioner, common enquiry was held by the Land Tribunal in respect of all the four claims, which were filed claiming occupancy rights. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Land Tribunal has not recorded his statement properly though he made oral statement that he is Badigara by profession and that he is cultivating the land in question and irrespective of validity of the sale deed, he is entitled for grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal proceeded to pass an order on 16.10.1985 and rejected Form No.1 filed

¶35

¶36

by the petitioner by holding that the petitioner has not proved his case and has granted occupancy rights to respondents No.4 to 6 in the very same survey number to different extents on an erroneous interoperation of law and facts. The said order is assailed in this writ petition.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶38

On a query raised by the Court with

¶39

regard to delay in filing the writ petition after 25 long years, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though the Land Tribunal passed the order on 16.10.1985 rejecting the claim of the petitioner he was not aware about the order. He submitted that the Land Tribunal had taken the left thumb impression of the petitioner and his father and sent them back without informing anything to them. Therefore he was not aware of

¶40

¶41

the same and hence he could not challenge the order in time. He also submitted that there was a consequential direction for resuming the land to the Government, and even till date no action is taken by the Government authorities due to several technical formalities of Revenue Department. It is submitted that, it is only during the month of August 2010, the petitioner overheard through the local revenue officials that his Form No.1 was rejected long back and that the revenue authorities would take possession of the land at any time. Hence, there is a delay. He also submitted that the delay is bona fide and unintentional and the petitioner has very good case on merits. Therefore, he submitted that the delay may be condoned.

¶42

5. Per Contra, the learned HCGP supported

¶43

the order of the Land Tribunal. He submitted that the Land Tribunal passed an order on 16.10.1985

¶44

¶45

and the petitioner did not challenge the same well in time and it is only in the year 2010 the writ petition was filed. He therefore submitted that the writ petition may be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

¶46

This Court considered the submissions

¶47

in the light of the material on record. The petitioner herein filed Form No.1 on 29.3.1984, vide Annexure-A. The Land Tribunal passed the order on 16.10.1985, vide Annexure-F. On a perusal of Annexure-F, it is seen that public and individual notices were published and issued as per the rules. The other applicants also filed Form No.1 for grant of occupancy rights on 27.3.1984.

¶48

The Land Tribunal clubbed all the matters and passed order. The petitioner has deposed that he has purchased the portion of the suit land about six years back from Marienna Achar and requested to grant patta. The Land Tribunal

¶49

¶50

considered the claim of the petitioner and has held that the petitioner is owning the land consequent to the alienation and he is not holder of minor Inam. The Land Tribunal has also held that in view of the Government Circular No.RD 304 LRM.76, dated 19.8.1976, the inam lands are inalienable and impartiable. Further, the Land Tribunal has held that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, since he was not a tenant within the meaning of section 5(1) of the said Act and accordingly rejected the claim of the petitioner.

¶51

Perused the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 16.10.1985, which is at Annexure-F. The Land Tribunal rejected the same in the year 1985. The petitioner is assailing the order of the Land Tribunal after over 25 years. The writ petition is nothing but a speculative

¶52

¶53

exercise and has to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner in his pleading has not offered satisfactory explanation regarding delay and laches.

¶54

In this context, a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue regarding delay and laches and as to how the Court of equity exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and cannot extend its hands to such persons who approach the Court after several years, can be relied upon. In fact, the Apex Court has held in several decisions that state claims ought not to be entertained by High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The recent decisions of the Apex Court in this regard are as follows:

¶55

a) In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332 (State of Orissa

¶56

¶57

& Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty) it is held that,

¶58

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.

¶59

b) In the case of Shankar Co-op. Housing

¶60

Society Ltd. v. M.Prabhakar & Ors., (2011 AIR

¶61

SCW 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;

¶62

¶63

“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 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

¶64

¶65

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.”

¶66

c) Reference can also be made to another

¶67

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

¶68

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.

¶69

d) In fact, in S.S.Balu and another vs.

¶70

State of Kerala and others, (2009) 2 SCC 479,

¶71

¶72

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.

¶73

The aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶74

SD/JUDGE

¶75

KGK

Sri. Kurubara Sunkanna S/O Dodda Linganna, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kurubara Sunkanna S/O Dodda Linganna, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehaboob Khan Khader Khan Gurani, Vs Smt. Bindu D/O Gangadhara Murthy

Vasant S/O Pandurang Shet Vs Town Municipal Council

Shri. Ayub Ibrahim Bagawan @ Bagavan Vs Smt. Surekha W/O Yeshwantappa Hulagabali

Ramalingappa Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shidlingappa Rachappa Barahanpur, Vs Chief Officer

Nabirsul S/O Abdulsaheb Jamadar, Vs the State of Karnataka