Dismissed

Smt. Puttagangamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024RP/374/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition filed under Section 114 CPC to challenge a writ order dismissing a claim over forty-four years due to delay. The court held that no acceptable reasons were shown for the delay and dismissed the review, citing established principles that review petitions cannot be treated as appeals.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed as no acceptable reasons were shown for the delay of over forty-four years.

Smt. Puttagangamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36338 RP No. 374 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO. 374 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PUTTAGANGAMMA W/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT KOOLIGERE VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 204.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. VENKATESH N., S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT RAMESHWARA VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDBALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 204.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PADMANABHA MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. THANUJA M.V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:36338 RP No. 374 of 2024

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHRAY LAGALI, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10851 OF 2024 (LR) AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:36338 RP No. 374 of 2024

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This Review Petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.10851/2024 seeking to review the order dated 11.07.2024, passed by this Court, disposing of the writ petition.

¶29

I have heard Sri. Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Thanuja M.V., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Hanamanthray Lagali, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶30

Sri. Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 58 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and submits that the Tahsidar is the competent authority to take action in the matter, however the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 21.08.1980 in LRF No.1781/77-78 in respect of the land in question and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. With regard to interference to be made in respect of the dismissal of

¶31

the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:36338 RP No. 374 of 2024

¶34

Sri. Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel contended that, the constitutional right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been deprived without following due procedure of law and further contended that, interference has to be made to condone delay in filing the writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TUKARAM KANA JOSHI AND OTHERS THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER Vs. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353; in the case of VIDYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569; and in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG AND ANOTHER Vs. MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, and argued that the judicial discretion has to be made by looking into the reasons stated

¶35

with regard to the delay in approaching the Court, when deprivation of constitutional right had taken place and accordingly, he submitted that liberal approach has to be made by accepting the petition as the writ petitioner is illiterate and

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:36338 RP No. 374 of 2024

¶38

accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel refers to the decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to accepting the petition by condoning the delay and further, it is contended that, in the event if discretion is not exercised in a manner provided under law, may still scuttle the constitutional right of the petitioner and as such sought for interference of this Court.

¶39

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there is no proper explanation for condoning the delay of nearly 44 years in filing the writ petition and accordingly, sought to justify the order dated 21.07.2024 in W.P.No.10851/2024.

¶40

In the backdrop of the Judgments referred to by the learned Senior Counsel, order dated 21.09.1989 in LRF 1781/77-78 passed by the Land Tribunal has been questioned in W.P.No.10851/2024. On careful examination of the writ papers, no explanation has been made in so far as to condone the delay of more than four decades. Perusal of paragraph No.6 in the Order dated 11.07.2024 makes it clear that even though the jurisdictional aspect has been considered, this Court has

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:36338 RP No. 374 of 2024

¶43

arrived at a conclusion that no acceptable reasons have been shown by the petitioner therein to condone the delay of more than four decades. That apart, it is well established principle in law that the review petition cannot be heard as an appeal and as such taking into consideration the dictum made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, since the review petitioner has not given cogent reasons and further sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay of fortyfour years in challenging the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal in the aforementioned writ petition, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER(1) AND ANOTHER, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, I am of the view that, this Court has exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India reasonably, and I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record to interfere in the Review Petition and accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.

¶44

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶45

sac/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Smt. Puttagangamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Puttagangamma 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

Khatijabi Vs M L Basavaraj

Sri Kariyappa Chikkaiadanna Vs Sri Jagadish

Smt H v Saroja Bai Vs B S Chandrashekhara Rao

Smt Vanajakshamma Vs Sri Kunduvadada Bheemappa

Sri Raghavendra Educational Vs Smt J Saraswathi

Smt Chikkatayamma Vs Smt Chikkamma