Petitioner challenged orders rejecting an application to set aside land alienation under the PTCL Act. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition noting over four years' delay and relying on precedents regarding laches and equity jurisdiction.
The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 13498 OF 2023 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
PILLAPPA S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT DASARA BEEDHI 17TH WARD DEVANAHALLI TOWN AND TALUK – 562 110
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAREDDY K N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUNITHA GANGARAJU Location: High Court of Karnataka
PILLAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S
NC: 2023:KHC:44169 WP No. 13498 of 2023
R/AT GOKARE VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562 110
PAPAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S
S/O LATE PAPAMMA AND H M MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT JAIN MANDIRA DODDABALLAPURA - VIJAYAPURA CROSS ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN DEVANAHALLI – 562 135
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4.1.2019 PASSED IN LND/SC-ST(A) 69/2006-07 BY THE R-2 HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANNX-F AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.10.2006 IN PTCL(De):26/2004-05 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN, PRODUCED AT IS ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the
order passed by respondent No.1 dated 07.10.2006 vide
NC: 2023:KHC:44169 WP No. 13498 of 2023
Annexure-E and order passed by respondent No.2 dated
04.01.2019 vide Annexure-F, has filed this writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Sy.No.98 (Old No.85) measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Budihala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was granted to the father of the petitioner. One Papamma, who is the mother of respondent Nos.5 and 6 purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 16.02.1971 from original grantee. One Pillamma who is the mother of respondent No.3 purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1975 from Papamma. The petitioner filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 rejected the application vide order dated 07.10.2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent
No.2. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 04.01.2019 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed this writ petition.
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 had passed the impugned orders. He submits that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is contrary to the object of the PTCL Act. He submits that the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is arbitrary and perverse and
same is liable to be set aside. Hence, on these grounds,
prays to allow the writ petition.
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, seeking for the relief of setting aside the alienations made by them in favour of Papamma and subsequent sale transactions. Respondent No.1 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on 07.10.2006. Respondent No.2 has passed an order on 04.01.2019 and the writ petition was filed on 24.06.2023. Thus, there is a delay of 4 years in filing the writ petition.
JAYAMMA & ORS., VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. , in W.P.Nos.17906-17907/2016, disposed of on 05.02.2018. The said view is reaffirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in HASNATH B. & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:44169 WP No. 13498 of 2023
& ORS. , in W.P.No.41508-41512/2017, disposed of on 01.02.2018.
METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. T.T. MURALI BABU reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, at paragraph No.17 has held as under:
"In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on
others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."
(Emphasis supplied)
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
SSB
Sd/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches despite the petitioner's challenge to the orders rejecting the application under the PTCL Act.
Whether the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was applied to set aside the alienation of land.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.Referred¶41
(2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
SMT. N. JAYAMMA & ORS., VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.Referred¶52
W.P.Nos.17906-17907/2016
HASNATH B. & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.Referred¶53
W.P.No.41508-41512/2017
CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. T.T. MURALI BABURelied on¶57
(2014) 4 SCC 108 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PILLAPPA S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE
THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE DEVANAHALLI
SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE PILLAMMA
NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE PAPAMMA AND H M MUNIYAPPA
ASHOK S.KINAGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
