Dismissed

Sri Munithimmaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2023WP/24623/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging orders dismissing applications under the PTCL Act. The court held the petition was barred due to a delay of over four years, applying the doctrine of latches despite the petitioners' reliance on the 2023 amendment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches without addressing the merits.

Sri Munithimmaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 24623 OF 2023 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MUNITHIMMAIAH S/O LATE KADDI PUDIGA @ MUNIGA KODATHI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI CARMELRAM POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK – 560 035 (SINCE DECEASED)

¶8

SURVIVED BY LR'S

¶9

NARAYANAMMA (SINCE DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY LR'S

¶10

Digitally signed by SUNITHA GANGARAJU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

VENKATAMMA W/O SRINIVAS (SINCE DECEASED) REP BY LR'S

¶12

RENUKA AGED 25 YEARS W/O MUNIRAJU

¶13

NAGARATHNA D/O NARAYANAMMA AGED 45 YEARS W/O THIMMARAJU NAGAMMA W/O ASHOK (D/O NARAYAMAMMA)

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶15

(SINCE DECEASED)

¶16

REPRESENTED BY LR'S

¶17

LAKSHMI 3. D/O NAGAMMA AGED 25 YEARS D/O ASHOK

¶18

MUNISWAMY S/O NARAYANAMMA AGED 40 YEARS

¶19

NAGARAJ (S/O NARAYANAMMA) AGED 35 YEARS

¶20

6 SMT. RAMYA D/O NARAYANAMMA AGED 31 YEARS W/O RAVI

¶21

ALL RESIDING AT

¶22

S/O LATE KADDI PUDIG @ MUNIGA KODATHI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI CARMELRAM POST BENGALURU EAST TALUKQ – 560 035

¶23

SRI RAMANNA ALIAS RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O NANJAPPA KODATHI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI CARMELRAM POST BENGALURU – 560 035 (SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY LR'S)

¶24

LAKSHMAMMA W/O RAMANNA @ RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED 63 YEARS

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶26

GAYATHRAMMA D/O RAMANNA @ RAMAKRISNAPPA AGED 39 YEARS

¶27

ASHA D/O RAMANNA @ RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED 36 YERS

¶28

TRIVENI D/O RAMANNA @ RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED 32 YEARS

¶29

R NAGENDRA AGED 30 YEARS S/O RAMANNA @ RAMAKRISHNAPPA

¶30

ALL R/AT SRINIVASAPURA VALLABHARAO ROAD WARD No.5, (K K PALYA) KOLAR – 563 135.

¶31

… PETITIONERS

¶32

(BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K B., ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU

¶35

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU

¶36

SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKA PAPAIAH KADATHI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶38

SRI M RAMA REDDY S/O MUNIYAPPA REDDY SARJAPURA ROAD AGARA VILLAGE BENGALURU – 560 039

¶39

SHRI S R KRISHNAMURTHY S/O RAMAIAH REDDY RAGHAVENDR NILAYA No.1, KRISHNAMURTHY LAYOUT D R COLLEGE POST S B PALYA BENGALURU – 560 039

¶40

SRI M MANJUNATHA S/O LATE MUNISWAMY KADATHI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI CARMALLARAM POST BENGALURU – 560 039

¶41

SHRI M KESHAVAMURTHY S/O LATE MUNISWAMY KODATHI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU – 560 035

¶42

SHRI M PADMANABHA S/O LATE MUNISWAMY KODATHI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI CARMALALRAM POST BENGALURU – 560 035

¶43

SHRI M SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE MUNISWAMY KODATHI VILLAGE VARTHU HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU – 560 035

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶45

SHRI M MURALI

¶46

S/O LATE MUNISWAMY KODATHI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU – 560 035

¶47

JOGGERE RAMESH SRINIVAS S/O J A RAMESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶48

JOGGERE VENKATESH SHARATH S/O J S VENKATESH AGED 30 YEARS

¶49

RESPONDENT 11 AND 12 R/AT No.5, PALACE CROSS ROAD CHAKRAVARTHY LAYOUT SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 020

¶50

B R YOGESH S/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.44, BUVANAHALLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116

¶51

V P SELVAN BALAJI S/O V PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT No.1, BALAJI NIVAS 5^TH CROSS, R A ROAD EJIPURA, BENGALURU – 560 047

¶52

… RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 27/02/2015 IN

¶55

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶56

PROCEEDINGS NO. K.SC.ST.68/2013-14 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 DATED 05/06/2019 IN PROCEEDINGS NO. SC. ST (APPEAL) 01/2015-16 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶57

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

¶58

O R D E R

¶59

This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the

¶60

order passed by respondent No.2 dated 27.02.2015 vide Annexure-E and order passed by respondent No.1 dated 05.06.2019 vide Annexure-J, has filed this writ petition.

¶61

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

¶62

It is the case of the petitioners that the land was granted in favour of one Kaddi Pudiga, who is the father of the petitioners. In the year 1932 the land was granted in favour of Kaddi Pudiga and the grant was a free grant. There are several alienations and the same was without the consent of the State which is in blatant violation of the terms of grant. The petitioners filed application under

¶63

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶64

Section 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.2 seeking for the relief of setting aside the alienation and restoration of the lands in favour of legal representatives of grantee. Respondent No.2 dismissed the application vide order dated 27.02.2015. The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 preferred an appeal to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 05.06.2019 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioners aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide Annexures E and J, filed this writ petition.

¶65

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and also the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶66

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to appreciate that the lands granted in favour of SC / ST Sections of the society and

¶67

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶68

the same was misused by the real estate persons/powerful persons by misusing the innocence and poor status and SC/ST persons and any granted land would be beneficial to the SC/ST community members only. It is contended that the granted lands alienated without the State approval. The orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is in blatant violation of terms of grant. He further submits that in view of amendment of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 2023 no limitation is prescribed for initiating the proceedings under the PTCL Act. He further submits that Amendment Act, 2023 is applicable to the present case in hand. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶69

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. He also submits that the order was passed by respondent No.1 on 05.06.2019 and the petitioners have filed the writ petition on 27.10.2023. He

¶70

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶71

submits that the petitioners have not shown the sufficient

¶72

cause in filing the writ petition at a belated stage. He submits that on the ground of delay and latches the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶73

Perused the records and considered the

¶74

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶75

The land in question was granted in favour of father of the petitioner on 15.01.1932. The petitioners are the legal representatives of original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and seeking for the relief of setting aside the alienation and restoration of the lands in favour of legal representatives of original grantee i.e., the petitioners. Respondent No.2 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners on 27.02.2015. Respondent No.1 has passed an order on 05.06.2019 and the writ petition was filed on 27.10.2023. Thus, there is a delay of 04 years in filing the writ petition.

¶76

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶77

Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an instance of exercise of jurisdiction in equity and therefore, before considering the writ petition on merits, the doctrine of delay and latches would have to be adverted to while exercising powers under equity jurisdiction. The said view is supported by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. N.

¶78

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 & ORS. , in W.P.No.41508-41512/2017,

¶79

disposed of on 01.02.2018.

¶80

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI 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:

¶81

"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

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶84

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."

¶85

(Emphasis supplied)

¶86

12 -

¶87

NC: 2023:KHC:41949 WP No. 24623 of 2023

¶88

There is a delay of more than 04 years in filing the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

¶89

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶90

pass the following:

¶91

ORDER

¶92

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶93

Sd/JUDGE

¶94

SSB

Sri Munithimmaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Munithimmaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Mrs Shalet Mathais Vs Mr Mathew Mathais

Sri. Hanumantharayappa Vs Sri S K Veerabhadrappa

Sri B M Ramasubaiah Vs Sri K M Ramachandrappa

Balaji S Vs Chariman Cbse

Sri Muniraju Vs Sri Veerappa

Sri. Hanuman Purushothama Vs State of Karnataka