The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed fourteen years after the impugned order, holding that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings but delayed filing, rendering the petition liable on grounds of delay and laches.
The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
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 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.P.No.45286/1995 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATARAMANA TEMPLE KARKALA, DAKSHINA KANNADA REPRESENTED BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE K.VITTAL PAI (AGED 45 YEARS) S/O.PANDURANGA PAI RESIDING NEAR S.V. TEMPLE MAIN ROAD KARKALA, DAKSHINA KANNADA
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASANNA V.P., ADV.)
AND:
2
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
3
(BY SRI K.C.SHANTA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2(A) TO (F) SRI.C.N.MAHADESWARAN, AGA FOR R3 & R4 R1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16.10.1981 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN TRL 1307/80-81 PRODUCED HEREIN AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES THE SCHEDULE LND AND GRANT THE PETITIONER SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT AND PROPER INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
4
by law and the 1st respondent had shown the name of Vittal Pai as the Manager of the Temple and the said Vittal Pai had died long ago and therefore, there could not be any representation with regard to the claim of occupancy rights. This averment indicates that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings initiated by the tenant and its only defence appears to be that Vittal Pai had expired long ago and therefore, there could not be any representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, no material is forthcoming as to when Vittal Pai died. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was aware of the order that was passed and the petition filed fourteen years after the impugned order of the Land Tribunal does not deserve to be entertained. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
SD/JUDGE
PKS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Land Tribunal order is maintainable after a delay of fourteen years.
Whether the lack of service of copy of the order on the petitioner warrants entertaining a belated writ petition.
SRI VENKATARAMANA TEMPLE KARKALA
SUBRAYA HEGDE
GOPALA HEGDE
SMT.RUKMA HEGDE
DR.MOHINI ACHAR
SMT.CHITHRA N SHENOY
N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
