Dismissed

Manjula v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023WP/21520/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition concerning grant land alienation despite substantive grievances. The court held that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause for a delay of over 18 months. Citing Supreme Court precedent on indolent claims, the petition was thrown overboard at the threshold.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground of delay without sufficient cause.

Manjula Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:35816 WP No. 21520 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 21520 OF 2023 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJULA, GIDDAMMA BY LRS, W/O KARIAIAH, D/O GIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/OO MOSALE VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶8

LAXMI, W/O JAYARAMA, D/O GIDDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O MOSALE VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶9

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

(BY SRI. MOHAN P S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35816 WP No. 21520 of 2023

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 02.

¶17

NINGAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS DYAVEGOWDA, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED BOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KOWSHIKA VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶18

LALITHAMMA, W/O BHEEMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O KOWSHIKA VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶19

VYRAMUDI, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O KOWSHIKA VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN DTD 11.12.2002 IN NO.LSD.SC.ST(HSN)5/96-97 AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35816 WP No. 21520 of 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan, i.e., respondent No.3 dated 11.12.2002 vide annexure-D and also order passed by the Deputy Commissioner i.e, respondent No.2 dated 16.11.2021 vide annexure-E.

¶27

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as under:

¶28

The property bearing Sy.No.328 measuring 2 acre situated at Kowshika Village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk was granted to 13 members of the village through darakasth vide Government order. The petitioners grand father Ajjaiah, s/o Javaraiah was one of the grantee and in pursuant of the Government order, the Assistant Commissioner issued Hangami Sagulvali chit on 17.11.1959 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.328 measuring 2 acre. On 01.11.1961 the Thasildar issued a grant certificate in favour of Ajjaiah with the rules of Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prohibition

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35816 WP No. 21520 of 2023

¶30

of Transfer of Certain Lands (here in after referred to as 'PTCL Act') Act, 1978 and also there is a bar to alienate the property in the grant certificate dated 01.11.1961. After demises of Ajjaiah, the katha was transferred and got mutated in the name of his daughter Giddamma. She inherited the said property and after the death of Ajjaiah she became the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the property. Late Ningamma being a stranger claim to have purchased the schedule land on 28.04.1973 and 28.11.1974 and tried to interfere with the

¶31

possession and enjoyment of property. After verification, Giddamma came to know that Ningamma concocted the registered sale deeds with respect to suit schedule property behind the back of the petitioners. To prevent the interference of Ningamma, the Giddamma filed an application/petition before the Assistant Commissioner for cancellation of concocted sale deeds by violating rules and regulations of PTCL Act. The said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2002. After death of their mother the respondent No.5 behind the back of the

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:35816 WP No. 21520 of 2023

¶33

petitioners without their knowledge, preferred an appeal by challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 16.11.2021. Hence, the petitioners are aggrieved by the same have filed this writ petition.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question was a granted land and the mother of petitioner No.2 had sold the property in favour of Ningamma in contravention of Section 4 of PTCL Act. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have committed an error in passing the impugned orders. Hence, he prays to allow the Writ Petition.

¶36

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Deputy Commissioner passed

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:35816 WP No. 21520 of 2023

¶39

an order on 16.11.2021 and the Writ Petition is filed on 15.09.2023, thus there is delay of more than 18 months in filing the Writ Petition. He submits that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for delaying in filing Writ Petition at belated stage. Hence, on the ground of delay the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶40

Perused the records and considered the

¶41

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

It is not in dispute that the land was granted in favour of Ajjaiah under Government order. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner issued Hangami Saguvali Chit on 17.11.1959 and Tahsildar has issued a grant certificate on 01.11.1961 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.328 measuring 2 acre. Further, the Ajjaiah died leaving behind his only daughter namely Giddamma. After his demises the property was transferred in the name of Giddamma. Giddamma sold the said property in favour of Ningamma under registered sale deeds 28.04.1973 and 28.11.1974.

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:35816 WP No. 21520 of 2023

¶44

Giddamma filed an application under Section 5 of PTCL Act in the year 1996 before the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner. Respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner after holding the due enquiry, rejected the application filed by Giddamma. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 that is brother of Giddamma aggrieved by the order passed of the Assistant Commissioner preferred an appeal under Section

¶45

5A of PTCL Act before the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.2/Deputy

¶46

Commissioner after considering the materials on record dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.11.2021 and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶47

The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2 and 3 vide annexure-D and E have filed this Writ Petition. Though there is delay of 18 months in filing this Writ Petition, petitioners have not shown sufficient cause in filing the Writ Petition at belated stage.

¶48

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:35816 WP No. 21520 of 2023

¶51

T.T. MURALI BABU reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 , at

¶52

paragraph No.17 has held as under:

¶53

"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

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:35816 WP No. 21520 of 2023

¶56

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."

¶57

(Emphasis supplied)

¶58

In view of the order by The Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶59

the case of C HENNAI M ETROPOLITAN W ATER S UPPLY AND

¶60

S EWERAGE B OARD ( SUPRA ), t he petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause in not preferring the Writ Petition in time. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

PNV

Manjula v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanush Venkatesh Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narasimhamurthy Vs Smt Rathnamma

Shivannegowda Vs Kenchegowda

Smt. Mamatha Vs Sri. Rajegowda

Nethravathi v Vs Karnataka State Law University

Mr Yadunandan K Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences