Writ petition challenging an 1987 order of forfeiture and seeking restoration of land. Court dismissed petition due to enormous delay and lack of merit.
Petition rejected; liberty taken to approach appropriate forum against the 1987 order of forfeiture.
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 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.19867 OF 2022 (KLR – RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
NOW R/A HOUSE NO.122, 25TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN ROAD, D BLOCK, J.P.NAGAR, MYSURU.
2
R/A HANGADA, GUNDLUPETE TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 111.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R4 TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN PURSUANCE TO THE LETTER BEARING NO.RRT.CR/313/22-23 DATED 19.7.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE - H BY THE R3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Petitioners are knocking at the doors of writ court with the following prayers:
a) ISSUE A writ of mandamus direction to the Respondent No.4 to take further action in pursuance to the letter bearing No.RRT.CR/313/22-23 dated 19.7.2022 vide Annexure-H by the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner and to pass appropriate suitable orders in the interest of justice;
b) ISSUE appropriate directions to the respondents to take immediate action to restore the lands bearing Sy.No.49/1 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas and Sy.No.50/1 measuring 3 acres and in all 5 acres 16 guntas situated at Chennamallapura village, Hangadi Hobli, Gundlupete Taluk in the name of these petitioners and effect their names in the record of rights by deleting the name of the government and to enter the name of these petitioners in the record of rights,
c) ISSUE A Consequential directions to the respondents to take action in accordance with law in the matter of restoration of the lands bearing Sy No.49/1 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas and Sy.No.50/1 measuring 3 acres and in all 5 acres 16 guntas situated at Chennamallapura village, Hangadi Hobli, Gundlupete Taluk in favour of these petitioners if necessary by settling aside the order of forfeiture dated 24.08.1987 vide Annexure-A being arbitrary, illegal and void and in violation of principles of natural justice and other wise offending Articles 14 & 16 of the
4
Constitution of India and pass suitable orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
upon the letter dated 19.07.2022 issued by the respondent-
Assistant Commissioner directing the jurisdictional
Tahasildar as under:
"¸ÀA::Dgï.Dgï.n.¹.Dgï/313/22-23 ¢:19.07.2022
UÉ,
vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï, UÀÄAqÀÄè¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, UÀÄAqÀÄè¥ÉÃmÉ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
«µÀAiÀÄ:SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À«
¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR:- ²æà gÀvÀߪÀÄä PÉÆÃA ¨É¼Àî¥Àà.¹ ZÉ£ÀߪÀÄ°è¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¢:28.06.2022
«µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, UÀÄAqÀÄè¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ºÀAUÀ¼À ºÉÆç½ ZÀ£ÀߪÀÄ°è¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA 49/1 gÀ°è 2.16 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À.£ÀA 50/1 gÀ°è 3.00 JPÀgÉ MlÄÖ 5.16 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¦vÁæfðvÀªÁzÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹ SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« §UÉÎ PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¤AiÀiÁªÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ, PÉÊUÉÆAqÀ PÀæªÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ MAzÀÄ
5
¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸ÀÄvÁÛ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß F PÀÆqÀ ®UÀwÛ¹ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉ.
G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁj PÉƼÉîÃUÁ® G¥À«¨sÁUÀ PÉƼÉîÃUÁ®.
¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß: ²æêÀÄw gÀvÀߪÀÄä PÉÆÃA ¨É¼Àî¥Àà.¹. ZÉ£ÀߪÀÄ°è¥ÀÄgÀ, ªÀizÀÆÝgÀÄ CAZÉ, UÀÄAqÀÄè¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ #122, 25 £Éà PÁæ¸ï 10 £Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, r ¨ÁèPï, eÉ.¦.£ÀUÀgÀ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ."
3. Learned AGA on request having accepted notice
for the respondents, vehemently opposes the petition contending that the land in question has been fortified by
the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 24.08.1987 and therefore, it is unthinkable that the jurisdictional Tahasildar can do anything inconsistent thereto merely because the Assistant Commissioner has issued the direction in question. Having so contended, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the
6
submission made on behalf of the official respondents. A statutory order made way back in August of 1987 is indirectly being put in challenge with no plausible explanation, whatsoever for enormous delay brooked in knocking at the doors of writ court.
It has been a settled position of law that the sleepy and indolent litigant will not be shown any favour in constitutional jurisdiction.
In the above circumstances, writ petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is. of course with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings against the impugned order elsewhere. In that regard, all contentions are kept open.
Costs made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should issue a direction to the Tahasildar to restore land despite a 35-year-old statutory order of forfeiture.
Whether the delay in approaching the writ court for 35 years vitiates the constitutional remedy.
Whether the Assistant Commissioner can direct the Tahasildar to act contrary to a prior statutory order.
Smt. Rathnamma
Sri. C.P. Chandru
Smt. Gangamma Jyothi C.V.
The State of Karnataka
The Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagara District
The Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal Sub Division
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
