The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition regarding land title, holding that the condonation of delay of 5024 days is untenable after the writ petitioner failed to file an appeal during his lifetime.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.A.No.1313/2018 (KLR – RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. A.M. Gangappa Since deceased, Represented by his Lr’s
All are Residing at R/o Angondahalli village, Avani Hobli,
2
Mulbagal Taluk – 563 131. Kolar District … Appellants
(By Sri.J.R.Jagadish, Advocate)
AND:
3
4
5
Respondents No.4 to 37 are Residents of Angondahalli Village, Angondahalli Post, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District – 563 131.
… Respondents
(By Sri. S.Rajashekar, AGA for R-1 to R-3 )
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.Nos.9715/2001 on 25/06/2004 and allow the said Writ Petition.
6
This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, NAGARATHNA, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of Sri.A.M.Gangappa, the writ petitioner who had filed WP.No.9715/2001 assailing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.171/2000 dated 28.02.2001 (Annexure–E) to the writ petition. By the impugned order dated 25.06.2004, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition and despite there being delay of 5024 days in filing the appeal, this appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of the writ petitioner/Sri.A.M.Gangappa and the same is filed in the year 2018.
7
advance notice and we have perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the appellants are the legal representatives of the petitioner/Sri.A.M.Gangappa, who died in the year 2016.
They have filed this appeal seeking permission to do so by filing I.A.No.1/2020. They have also filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 5024 days in filing the appeal. The appellants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, Sri.A.M.Gangappa, stated in the application that the appellants were not aware of the impugned order being passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. After the death of the petitioner in the year 2016, when they made an attempt to get their names entered in the revenue records in respect of the land in question, being Sy.No.35 of Angondahalli Village to an extent of 4 acres 22 guntas, they came to know that the learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the original
8
petitioner. Therefore, the delay of 5024 days in filing the appeal is due to bonafide and unintentional reasons and the same may be condoned and permission may be granted to the appellants to file the appeal as they have good case on merits.
9
Consequently, the application seeking the permission to file the appeal may also be dismissed.
10
not do so during his life time. He died in the year 2016 and thereafter, in the year 2018 i.e. on 27.04.2018, his legal representatives have filed this appeal. The long delay of 5024 days in filing the appeal has not been explained properly, so as to conclude the same as sufficient at law to condone. In fact, as we have already noted the original writ petitioner did not assail the order of the learned Single Judge for twelve long years during his lifetime. It is only after fourteen years after the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge, the legal representatives of the original petitioner have sought to assail the same. We think that filing of this appeal after such a long period of time, is only a speculative attempt to reopen the case which had attained finality as early as in the year 2004. We concur with the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate in this regard. Therefore, the delay cannot be condoned. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.
11
dismissed.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, I.A.No.2/2020 stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KTY
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay of 5024 days in filing the appeal is permissible.
Whether permission to file the appeal can be granted despite the prolonged inactivity.
Whether the appeal can be admitted raising questions of finality and laches.
Smt. K. Nagarathnamma and ors.
State of Karnataka
B.V. Naragathan
N.S. Sanjay Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
