Dismissed

Sri. Gopal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2023WP/7101/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The High Court held that the long delay in challenging the grant cancellation (37 years) barred relief. The original grantee remained silent despite knowledge of the cancellation, depriving her heirs of locus standi.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is reflected as devoid of merits and stands dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

Sri. Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:26268 WP No. 7101 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7101 OF 2013 (KLR-LG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GOPAL, S/O. LATE. THIPAYYA & LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. BABU, S/O. LATE. THIPAYYA & LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶10

2(a) SMT. CHAMUNDI, W/O. LATE SRI.T.BABU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

2(b) KUMARI. MONICA.B., D/O. LATE SRI. T. BABU, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

¶13

2(c) MASTER. RAGHAVA.B., S/O. LATE SRI. T. BABU, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

¶14

BOTH THE APPLICANT 2(b) AND 2(c) ARE MINORS HENCE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER, SMT. CHAMUNDI.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:26268 WP No. 7101 of 2013

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT PUTTAPPANA GUDI STREET, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶24

SMT. MERI JAYA LIGORI, W/O. C. LIGORI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.438, 11TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶25

SMT. MERI MAGADILIN, W/O. TONEY FRANCIS, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:26268 WP No. 7101 of 2013

¶28

NO.709, SHANAN LINE, HIGHLAND VILLAGE, DALLASTECHNOS,

¶29

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

¶30

SMT. MERY LILLY, D/O. C.R. ARALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.15, CUNNIGHAM ROAD, OPPOSITE TO HOTEL LIMERIDAYAN, BANGALORE.

¶31

SMT. MERI SELVA, W/O. SAIRAM MOHANTHI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.188, 10TH MAIN, "B" BLOCK, J.P. NAGAR, MYSORE - 08.

¶32

MR. A. SHANTHARAJ, S/O. C.R. ARALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.15, CUNNIGHAM ROAD, OPPOSITE TO HOTEL LIMERIDAYAN, BANGALORE.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 6/09/2017, NOTICE TO R4 AND 7 ARE DISPENSED WITH; R5 AND 8-SERVED; SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAL., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶35

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED.23.10.1978 PASSED BY THE R1, AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:26268 WP No. 7101 of 2013

¶37

QUASH THE ORDER DATED.23.10.1978 PASSED BY THE R1, AT ANNEXURE-B. AND ETC.,

¶38

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The captioned petition is filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee, assailing the order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner in canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioner's mother, Lakshmamma.

¶41

2. Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶42

The petitioner's mother, Lakshmamma, was granted land bearing Sy.No.44, measuring 4 acres, vide common grant order on 28.04.1967. Pursuant to the grant, saguvali chit was issued. The original grantee, Lakshmamma, in contravention of grant conditions, alienated the land in question. Another grantee under the same common order was also found guilty of selling the granted land in contravention of grant conditions. Therefore, the Deputy

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:26268 WP No. 7101 of 2013

¶44

Commissioner, after issuing notice and also having affixed the notices as to why the grant order should not be cancelled in the village, has proceeded with an enquiry and, vide common order dated 23.10.1978, has ordered for cancellation on the ground that the original grantee, Lakshmamma, has ventured into selling the granted land in favour of a third party vide registered sale deed dated 28.02.1969.

¶45

The original grantee, Lakshmamma, strangely sought resumption of land by filing an application in 2006 but never opted to challenge the cancellation of the grant during her lifetime. The legal heirs of the original grantee, Lakshmamma, filed the captioned petition in 2013, assailing the cancellation order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in 1978. There is a delay of 37 years. In an identical case by another grantee under the common order who had also alienated the granted land in violation of the grant condition, his legal heir approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.1773/2006. The co-ordinate

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:26268 WP No. 7101 of 2013

¶47

Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.11.2007, was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order vide Annexure-A. This Court was of the view that if the original grantee sold the granted land in 1967 in the said case, he has no locus to question the impugned order vide Annexure-A. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The writ appeal filed by the legal heirs of the said grantee in W.A.No.2373/2007 was dismissed as withdrawn. The facts in the present case on hand are also found to be identical and similar to the facts in W.P.No.1773/2006. In the present case on hand, this Court would also find that the original grantee, Lakshmamma, though sought resumption of land in 2006, has not chosen to question that cancellation of grant on account of alienation.

¶48

In the instance case, there is delay of 37 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ and

¶49

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶50

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:26268 WP No. 7101 of 2013

¶51

Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha² has held that where

¶52

statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. Thus, without exception and coming across various rules of law, the Apex Court has categorically stated the law in respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.

¶53

The contention of the petitioners before this Court that Lakshmamma was not aware of the impugned order vide Annexure-A cannot be acceded to. The statement made in the captioned petition is factually incorrect. In the resumption application filed by the purchaser, he has taken a specific stand by filing a statement of objections. The purchaser has clearly

¶54

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶55

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:26268 WP No. 7101 of 2013

¶56

indicated at paragraph No.3.1 that the grant in favour of Lakshmamma is cancelled vide order dated 23.10.1978.

¶57

The statement of objection was filed in April 2010. Therefore, Lakshmamma, even otherwise, was aware of the cancellation of the grant on account of alienation by her way back in 2010. The original grantee, Lakshmamma, has not questioned the impugned order vide Annexure-A. The petitioners herein, who claim to be the legal heirs of the original grantee, Lakshmamma, have no locus to question the impugned order vide Annexure-A as they do not have any independent rights in the granted land.

¶58

The learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued and contended that, the procedure adopted while canceling the grant order suffers from a serious infraction and is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as no notice was served on the original grantee, Lakshmamma. The said fact cannot be examined at this juncture. The records produced by the purchaser themselves indicate that the authority has made an

¶59

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:26268 WP No. 7101 of 2013

¶60

attempt to serve a copy of the show cause notice to all the grantees who have alienated the granted land. At page No.110 of the writ petition, it is forthcoming that the authorities have tried to trace out the grantees. The records further reveal that grantees who have alienated the granted land were not found in the village. To avoid future complications, the Tahasildar has requested the subordinates to serve the notices on the parties if they are found to be residing in the village; if not, affix the notices on the village chavadi. Even on this count, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Despite the fact that the cancellation of the grant order has gone unchallenged for a period of 37 years, the disputed question of fact as to whether notice was served on the grantee cannot be examined at this juncture. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that notice was not served in terms of Rule 27 of the Land Grant Rules cannot be entertained, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶61

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:26268 WP No. 7101 of 2013

¶62

In view of discussion made supra, I am of the

¶63

view that no reliefs can be granted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed;

¶66

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

HDK CT:STK

Sri. Gopal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gopal 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

S Venkataswamy Vs Deputy Commissioner

Anatha Sevashrama Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Nagamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. D Disha Vs Sri. B C Hemanth

Smt Mary Lily Vs State of Karnataka