Dismissed

Bhimanna and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WA/200077/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants sought restoration of their grandmother's name in the RTC for agricultural land after it was deleted and Government entered without notice in 2002. The Single Judge had dismissed the 2014 petition citing delay and laches. The Divisional Bench, relying on precedents on delay, found the appellants failed to substantiate the delay and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhimanna and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors. — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3765-DB WA No.200077 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.200077 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

BHIMANNA

¶12

S/O LATE SHANKER, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANHALLI, TQ: & DIST: BIDAR- 585 401.

¶13

DHANRAJ

¶14

Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

S/O LATE SHANKER, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MANHALLI, TQ: & DIST: BIDAR- 585 401.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI JAIRAJ K.BUKKA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3765-DB WA No.200077 of 2022

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIDAR – 585 402.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER D.C. OFFICE BIDAR – 585 401.

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR TAHSIL OFFICE, BIDAR – 585 401.

¶24

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR MANHALLI,

¶25

TQ: & DIST: BIDAR- 585 401.

¶26

THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT MANHALLI,

¶27

TQ: & DIST: BIDAR- 585 401.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GOVT. ADV., FOR R1 TO R6)

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FIELD UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT-1961, PRAYING TO:

¶31

A) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.204750/2014 ON DATED 08.02.2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

B) ISSUE THE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO INCORPORATE THE APPELLANTS NO.4 NAME IN THE R.T.C. OF LAND SY.NO.160 MEASURING 17 ACRES 21 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MANHALLI, TQ AND DIST BIDAR IN VIEW OF ANNEXURE-M DATED 18.12.2001, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3765-DB WA No.200077 of 2022

¶34

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

In this appeal, the appellants questioned the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.204750/2014 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and latches.

¶37

The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that, the appellants’ grandmother was cultivating the land Sy.No.160 measuring 17 acres 21 guntas situated at Manhalli. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 entered and maintained the records in the name of the appellants’ grand mother in the RTC since from 197677 to 2010-11. However, on 05.01.2002, her name was deleted from the RTC without giving any notice and the name of Government is entered in the RTCs. As such, the appellants were constrained to file a writ petition before the learned Single Judge in the year 2014 and the writ

¶38

- 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3765-DB WA No.200077 of 2022

¶39

Court has dismissed the said petition on the ground of inordinate delay and latches. Impugning the same, the appellants are before this Court.

¶40

We have heard Sri Jairaj K. Bukka, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶41

It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not considering the document dated 05.01.2002 despite the same was produced on 08.02.2022. He submits that due to oversight, the relevant document establishing the appellants right, not produced along with the writ petition papers but the same has been produced during the course of argument. However, the learned Single Judge has not considered the same and passed the impugned order. He would also contend that the appellants’ mother was cultivating the land since 1972-73 and till today the same is in the possession of the appellants. This aspect of the matter

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3765-DB WA No.200077 of 2022

¶43

has not been considered the learned Single Judge. Hence,

¶44

on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ appeal.

¶45

Per contra, learned Government Advocate for

¶46

the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches and prays to dismiss the writ appeal.

¶47

On careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge so also the documents placed before us, it could be seen that the RTC extract produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition shows that the respondent No.4 has passed the order on 01.05.2002. Admittedly, the said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge in the year 2014 i.e., after lapse of 12 years. In such circumstance, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and Ors. reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 318 and also placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 wherein it is

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3765-DB WA No.200077 of 2022

¶49

held that, ‘it is not the length of delay, but it is the cause

¶50

for delay to be looked into’.

¶51

In view of the above, in the case on hand, the

¶52

appellants have failed to substantiate the inordinate delay in approaching the writ Court. Under such circumstances, we find no grounds are made out to interfere with the well

¶53

reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The writ appeal is hereby

¶56

dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶57

However, liberty is reserved to the

¶58

appellants to approach the competent