W. A. challenging dismissal of writ petition on grounds of 13-year delay in assailing an order rejecting land forfeiture application filed by deceased's legal representatives was dismissed for lack of merit admitting no sufficient explanation for delay.
Writ appeal and IA for stay both dismissed.
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 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.3008 OF 2019 (LR)
BETWEEN:
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
3
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1-R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.1280 OF 2013 (LR) ON 02.07.2019.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The legality and correctness of order dated 02.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.1280 of 2013 by the
learned Single Judge of this Court is called in question in this appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that there was long delay of thirteen years in assailing the impugned order of the
4
Deputy Commissioner dated 23.04.2001 and the delay not having been explained, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
that the applicant T.Rangappa, who was the father of the appellants had filed an application before the Land Tribunal contending that he was in actual possession and cultivation of the land in question. Initially, by order dated 27.08.1981, the Land Tribunal, Channagiri had allowed the said application. However, the said order was assailed before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.20380-20387 of 1992 and by the order dated 09.04.1997, the said writ petitions
were allowed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner to re-consider the application filed by Sri.T.Rangappa along with the application filed by the rival contenders. Subsequent to remand, by order dated 23.04.2001, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application filed in Form No.1 by T.Rangappa. By then, T.Rangappa had demised on 29.12.1998. However, his
5
legal representatives, namely, the appellants herein were ordered to come on record and after hearing them, the impugned order dated 23.04.2001 was passed. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that, no doubt, there may be a delay in filing the writ petitions, but the land is ordered to be forfeited and as such, the valuable rights of the appellants are in jeopardy by the usurpation of the land in question. He, therefore, contended that interest of justice would be sub-served, if laches of thirteen years is condoned and the matter is taken up and considered on merits.
6
learned Counsel for the respective parties in light of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the material on record. The detailed narration of the facts and contentions would not call for reiteration, except highlighting the fact that after remand of the matter in Writ Petition Nos.20380-20387 of 1992 on 09.04.1997 by this Court, the same was taken up for re-consideration by the Deputy Commissioner. No doubt, on 29.12.1998, when the matter was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, the applicant, namely, T.Rangappa, the father of the appellants herein died, but the appellants herein were brought on record as legal representatives before the said authority and they continued to prosecute Form No.1. By order dated 23.04.2001, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application filed by their father. Till 2013, the appellants remained silent and acquiesced in the matter and did not approach this Court by filing the writ petition, so as to assail the order dated 23.04.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. There is no reason for the gross
7
delay in approaching this Court in the year 2013. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal so as to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA.1 of 2019
filed for stay stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
*bgn/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Delay of Thirteen Years in Assailing Impugned Order Regarding Land Forfeiture is Condonable and Writ Appeal Should be Dismissed on Grounds of Laches
Whether Legal Representatives Should be Granted Leave to File Writ Petition Despite Gross Delay Since Death of Original Applicant
Whether Single Judge Order Dismissing Writ Petition on Grounds of Delay and Laches is Infirmed on Appeal
Anasuya Daughter of Late T.Rangappa
Devaki Daughter of Late T.Rangappa
State of Karnataka
Deputy Commissioner Davanagere District
Narasimha Devaru
Land Tribunal Channagiri
B.V. Nagarathna
M.G. Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
