Allowed

Sri Gadde Anajenya Devasthana v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2021WA/4031/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition due to a 22-year delay in filing. The High Court held that the appellant's explanation regarding being deprived of prior notice due to improper representation by the state officer was sufficient to condone the delay.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 8.2.2017 passed by the Single Judge is set aside; the writ appeal is allowed; the matter is remitted to the Single Judge to consider the case on merits.

Sri Gadde Anajenya Devasthana Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.4031 OF 2017 (LR)

¶9

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.9864 OF 2008 (LR)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI GADDE ANAJENYA DEVASTHANA, BY ITS VAHIVATUDAR, SRI.V.SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O LATE VITOBACHARYA, AGED 94 YEARS, R/O DAKSHINA NALA, KASABA HOBLI, HOLE NARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573211. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ...APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI NITHIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR HOLE NARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573211.

¶18

3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL

¶19

HOLE NARASIPURA TALUK-573211, HASSAN DISTRICT. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

SRI SRINIVASA, S/O THIMMARAYEE GOWDA, MAJOR,

¶21

R/O DAKSHINA NALA, KASABA HOBLI, HOLE NARASIPURA TALUK,

¶22

HASSAN DISTRICT-573211. ...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R1 AND R3 )

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.02.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.9864/2008 (LR).

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High

¶29

Court Act, 1961 is filed against the order dated 8.2.2017

¶30

passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.9864/2008.

¶31

¶32

Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶33

The land bearing survey No.137/3 measuring 5 guntas situated at Dakshina Nala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District is the subject matter of this appeal.

¶34

The fourth respondent claiming to be a tenant of the land in question filed an application for grant of occupancy rights under Section 5 A of the Karnataka Inams (Religious and Charitable) Abolition Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to the 'Act'). In the application filed by the fourth respondent, the Land Tribunal concerned after considering the spot inspection report and also the statement of the fourth respondent held that the fourth respondent was cultivating the land in question for more than 20 years and accordingly granted occupancy rights under Section 5 A of the Act. Taking exception to the same, this appeal is filed.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶36

that the name of the appellant is reflected in column No.9

¶37

¶38

and column No.12 of the record of rights for the period 1971 to 1985 as owner. However, the fourth respondent without arraying the Vahivatudar of the appellant-temple and by arraying Tahsildar as the representative of the appellant-Temple before the Tribunal concerned has obtained an order granting occupancy rights behind the back of the appellant-temple. Hence, he submits that the order passed by the Tribunal was in violation of principles of natural justice and as such the learned single Judge without considering this aspect in a proper perspective has erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and latches.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned counsel for fourth respondent submitted that the appellant was aware of the order passed by the Land Tribunal and the appellant challenged the same without explaining the inordinate delay of 22 years. The learned Single Judge considering the same has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the

¶40

¶41

ground of delay and latches. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ appeal.

¶42

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶43

has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶44

We have considered the submissions made by

¶45

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶46

The only question involved in this appeal is

¶47

whether the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches is sustainable in law.

¶48

Perusal of the record of rights for the period 1971 to 1985 discloses that the name of the appellant-

¶49

temple is mutated as owner of land in question. The fourth respondent also claims that he was cultivating the land in question as the tenant under the appellant-temple. However, before the Tribunal, the Tahsildar was arrayed as a party representing the appellant-temple instead of arraying the Vahivatudar as representing the temple. The

¶50

¶51

Tribunal proceeded to register the fourth respondent as an occupant by relying on the spot inspection report and also the statement of the fourth respondent. It is evident from the records that the appellant was not notified or heard by the Tribunal before registering the fourth respondent as an occupant. It is in the backdrop of this factual position, the appellant-temple stated that there was delay in filing the writ petition. The fourth respondent has not placed any material to substantiate his claim that the appellant was heard by the Tribunal before passing the order and also notified of the order.

¶52

The learned single Judge without considering this aspect has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is no acceptable reason to condone the delay of 22 years in filing the writ petition. The cause shown by the appellant-temple at paras 14, 15 and 16 is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the writ petition.

¶53

In view of the foregoing discussion, the delay in filing the writ petition by the appellant-temple is

¶54

¶55

condoned and the order passed by the learned single Judge requires to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The writ appeal is allowed.

¶58

The order dated 8.2.2017 passed by the learned

¶59

Single Judge in WP No.9864/2008 is set aside.

¶60

The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge to

¶61

the consider the case on merits.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Sri Gadde Anajenya Devasthana v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gadde Anajenya Devasthana v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Ramanjulu Vs M v Giridhar

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Kolar Vs Smt. Sandhya Rani

Meta I Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Shideshwara N

M/S. Yeshwanth Laxman Sable Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Yeshwanth Laxman Sable Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sannegowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer