Dismissed

Sri C B Nataraja v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2023WP/54820/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition seeking to quash orders determining land office holders and regranting survey rights. The court dismissed the petition on grounds of significant delay and laches, noting the absence of satisfactory explanation for the 22-year lapse.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29.02.1988 refusing to register office holders was not set aside.

Sri C B Nataraja Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42107 WP No. 54820 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 54820 OF 2017 (KVOA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI C B NATARAJA S/O LATE SRI BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶8

SRI C.B.VASANTHKUMAR S/O LATE SRI BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶9

SRI RANGASWAMY S/O LATE SRI JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

SRI C.J.YOGISH @ THIMMAIAH S/O LATE SRI JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE R/OF CHIKKA KONDAGOLA KOPPALU VILLAGE, TEJUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. BARGHAV G, ADVOCATE FOR

¶15

SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:42107 WP No. 54820 of 2017

¶20

HASSAN-573201.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN-573201.

¶22

SRI RANGAIAH S/O RANGAIAH @ DASAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

¶23

3(i) SRI RAMESH H.R., S/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. B TYPE (BLOCK-2) B-11, PWD COLONY 1^ST MAIN ROAD (M.G. ROAD) CAUVERI ROAD HASSAN-573202.

¶24

3(ii) SRI. GOPALA KRISHA S/O LATE SRI RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O HOVVINAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KUPPALLI POST HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT 573201.

¶25

3(iii) SRI ASHOKA

¶26

S/O LATE SRI RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O HOOVINAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KUPPALLI POST HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT 573 201.

¶27

3(iv) SRI. LOKESHA S/O LATE SRI RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:42107 WP No. 54820 of 2017

¶30

R/O HOOVINAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KUPPALLI POST HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT – 573 201.

¶31

3(v) SMT H.R. SOWBHAGYA W/O SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN H D/O LATE SRI RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O HARIHARAPURA & POST MORARJI DESAYI VASATHI SCHOOL QUARTERS HALEKOTE HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573 225.

¶32

SMT LAKKAMMA W/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED AOBUT 85 YEARS, R/AT HOOVINAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN-573201.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SMT.SAVITRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; NOTICE TOR R4 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR LRS OF R3(i) TO (v))

¶35

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOCALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN IN CASE NO.HOA/11980-81 & ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, HASSAN IN MA NOS.17/1988 & 27/1988 RESPECTIVELY; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.02.1988 PASSED BY THE R-2 TAHSILDAR, HASSAN, VIDE ANNX-E.

¶36

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:42107 WP No. 54820 of 2017

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petitioners have impugned the orders in Miscellaneous Appeals in MA Nos.17/1988 and 27/1988 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Hassan [for short, the ‘District Court ’]. The District Court by the impugned order dated 12.01.1993 has dismissed the appeal in MA 27/1988, which is filed by the petitioners’ predecessor-in-title, Sri Javaraiah, as not pressed and the District Court by the next impugned order dated 30.06.1995 has allowed the deceased third respondent’s appeal in Misc. Appeal No.17/1988 directing that this respondent shall be registered as the Barwardar of Kuluvadi Service of Hoovinahalli village. The deceased third respondent’s legal representatives, as a consequence of this order dated 30.06.1995 in Misc. Appeal No.17/1988, would be entitled to a total extent of 13 acres 23 guntas in Sy.Nos.18,43,47 and 57 of Hoovinahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan District [ the subject property ].

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42107 WP No. 54820 of 2017

¶42

Initially, the jurisdictional Assistant

¶43

Commissioner by the order dated 11.03.1977 in No.HOS (HSN)106/68-69 has registered both Sri Javaraiah and the deceased third respondent [ Sri Rangaiah ], as Barwardars under the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 [for short, the ‘ KVOA Act ’] on certain conditions. However, Sri Javaraiah has called this order in question in an appeal filed under Section 3(2) of the KVOA Act in Misc. Appeal No.19/1977 on the file of the District Court, Hassan. After these orders the revenue records for the subject property have been updated in the name of the deceased third respondent [ Sri Rangaiah ] and after his death in the year 2013 in the name of his wife, Smt. Gowramma.

¶44

The District Court by its order dated 05.12.1977 has set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order restoring the proceedings for reconsideration directing the Assistant Commissioner

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:42107 WP No. 54820 of 2017

¶47

to record a specific finding on the question who, between Javaraiah and the third respondent, are the office holders. The jurisdictional Tahsildar, consequent to the Government Order in that regard, upon remand has taken up the proceedings for reconsideration.

¶48

The Tahsildar, by order dated 29.02.1988, has refused to register both Sri Javaraiah and the third respondent and they have called this order in question in their respective appeals viz . subject appeals in Misc. Appeal No.27/1988 and 17/1988. The District Court, while observing that Sri.Javaraiah’s appeal in No.27/1988 is disposed of as not pressed on 12.01.1993, has allowed the third respondent’s appeal in Misc. Appeal No.17/1988 holding that he would be the Barwardar and therefore entitled to regrant.

¶49

Sri Bhargav G, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that Sri Javaraiah died on

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:42107 WP No. 54820 of 2017

¶52

14.01.1992, and after his demise the petitioners have not participated in the proceedings much less filed any memo for disposal of the appeal in MA No.27/1988 as not pressed. Sri Bhargav G argues that the dismissal of this appeal as not pressed is contrived to play fraud on the petitioners, and that though the petitioners have been brought on record as legal heirs of Sri Javaraiah, they are not issued with any notice, and as such, the petitioners have not participated in the proceedings.

¶53

Sri Bhargav G contends that, as recorded by the Assistant Commissioner at the first instance, Sri Javaraiah was functioning as the Barwardar and his name is accordingly shown in the revenue records and these circumstances create an inviolable right in the petitioners, and that substantial justice would be done when these are considered and the proceedings restored for re-consideration. Sri Bhargav G canvasses that it is settled that substantial justice

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:42107 WP No. 54820 of 2017

¶56

would be paramount and that technical considerations should not be given undue or uncalled emphasis, and as such, this Court, notwithstanding the delay in filing this petition, should entertain the petition interfering with the District Court’s impugned order and restore the same for reconsideration.

¶57

Sri S.V. Prakash, the learned counsel for

¶58

the third respondent, without disputing the prior proceedings as referred to above, submits that the petition must be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. In this regard, Sri S.V. Prakash emphasizes that the petitioners cannot dispute that on the demise of Sri Javaraiah, his wife and his sons were brought on record; that they have not challenged the District Court’s order over decades; that the present petition is filed by the petitioners as the legal heirs of the deceased Javaraiah, being his sons and grandsons, only on the ground that they were not

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:42107 WP No. 54820 of 2017

¶61

aware of the proceedings without offering any explanation; and that consequent to the District Court’s order in Misc. Appeal No.17/1988, the revenue records have been updated in the name of the deceased third respondent [ Sri Rangaiah ] and after his death in the year 2013 in the name of his wife, Smt. Gowramma.

¶62

The proposition that substantial justice would be paramount and that technical considerations should not be given undue or uncalled emphasis is trite, but this Court must also apply the settled proposition that laches is a well-established ground for refusal to exercise the discretion to issue a writ¹ . The petitioners should have offered justifiable reasons to explain their failure to have recourse in law against the impugned orders at the earliest, but the petitioners have not placed any circumstance that could persuade this Court to opine that just and

¶63

1 Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury v. State of W.B., (1972) 2 SCC 420 at page 426

¶64

10 -

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC:42107 WP No. 54820 of 2017

¶66

sufficient cause has been offered to explain why action is not taken for a period of over 22 years. This Court cannot ignore the delay to entertain a writ petition after a lapse of 22 years and interfere with the impugned order as that will tantamount to placing a premium on the failure and unsettling orders which has prevailed over decades.

¶67

Hence, the petition stands rejected.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Sri C B Nataraja v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C B Nataraja v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Prabuddha Fuel Junction Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

M/S Padmashree Service Station Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

T K Sudhindra Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Tawakkal Fruits Vs the Director

M/S Jana Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Mr Manoj Narandas Samani

Sri T v Nagaraj Vs the Additional Commissioner