Sri. T. Srinivas, Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/03/2023, PASSED IN WP NO.1370/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION OR PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/s WHICH THIS HON BLE COURT DEEMS IT FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶37

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶41

This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 09.03.2023 passed by the

¶42

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB WA No. 430 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1370/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition.

¶45

We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar K. for the appellants and Sri.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that since the father of the appellants had no notice of award passed, they were unable to approach the Court for compensation in the form of allotment of available sites in the acquired land i.e., Sy.No.186/3 measuring 10 guntas and Sy.No.186/5 measuring 0.09 guntas. The learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the respondents are duty bound to allot sites in lieu of acquisition of lands in question. As such, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶47

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB WA No. 430 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Per contra , learned Additional Government

¶50

Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order considering the inordinate delay i.e., four decades in claiming the compensation by the appellants herein, which

¶51

does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court, particularly when there was no explanation for the said inordinate delay. As such, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶52

It could be gathered from records, the lands of the appellants were acquired by the respondents in the year 1975 itself vide final declaration dated 06.08.1975. Subsequently, the award was passed and thereafter notices were issued on 20.08.1976 and 27.08.1976 to one

¶53

Govinde Gowda and Nanjunda Gowda alleged to be anubhavdars of the lands in question. Subsequently, the lands were converted and sites were formed. Even if the appellants were unaware of the award notices or that the notices were issued to some other persons, they being the

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB WA No. 430 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

land losers would have approached the Court after the possession was taken by the respondents either for award of compensation or for any other claim in respect of lands in question. However, the appellants kept quiet for nearly four decades till 2021 i.e., when they issued legal notice to the respondents. There is no explanation forthcoming for this inordinate delay of nearly four decades. Thus, the lethargic conduct of the appellants should be deprecated. As such, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants herein.

¶57

6. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned

¶58

Single Judge has observed in paragraph No.3(a) and (b) as under:

¶59

" 3.XXXX

¶60

(a) The claim of the petitioners is structured on the basis of the acquisition of land that was accomplished about four decades ago under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 as admitted in paragraph 10 of the petition. The Preliminary Notification is dated 01.03.1975 and Final Notification

¶61

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB WA No. 430 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

is dated 06.08.1975. The award was passed soon thereafter and the award notice dated 27.08.1976 was issued long long ago. Thereafter another notice dated 20.08.1976 came to be issued telling the petitioners about the intended depositing of the compensation amount in the court. Thereafter what the land owner did in response to the same, is not forthcoming from the records except that petitioners made some representation only in the recent past followed by a legal notice dated 06.08.2021. Thus a long and inordinate delay coupled with abundant laches attributable to the petitioners galore in the matter. Virtually petitioners are asking the respondents and the Court to travel back in the time line too much and therefore that exercise is not worth undertaking, at least as a concession to the shortness of human life. It was Jeremy Bentham, an English jurist of by gone centuries who said that Law could not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy. Raking up stale claims is not in the best interest of the society.

¶64

(b) Acquisition of land is a serious matter and payment of compensation is no less serious. Where State acquires the land for allotment of sites to the lower strata of people, it pays the compensation amount from the treasury and thus it is a matter involving expenditure which in turn involves budgetary allocation. If stale claims are raised now that disturbs budgetary economics and therefore such claims cannot be entertained by the writ court in its equitable jurisdiction. Granting indulgence in

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB WA No. 430 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

matters of this kind would lay a very bad precedent that does not augur well for the public interest. A relief if granted on humanitarian ground may become a right to other similarly circumstanced and therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner. "

¶68

The learned Single Judge has rightly observed

¶69

that though award notices were issued on 20.08.1976 and 27.08.1976 in respect of lands in question informing the appellants about the intending deposit of compensation amount in the Court, the appellants have failed to respond to the same till 06.08.2021 and that there was no explanation from the appellants for the said inordinate delay in approaching the Court.

¶70

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI

¶71

METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS Vs. T.T. MURALI BABU - (2014) 4 SCC 108 ,

¶72

at paragraph 17 has held as under;

¶73

“17. 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 same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether

¶74

8 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB WA No. 430 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

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 . ”

¶78

9. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

¶79

Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has

¶80

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:35216-DB WA No. 430 of 2023

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

rightly rejected the claim of the appellants herein. Hence, interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not called for. Accordingly, writ appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶83

SD/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶84

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶85

PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri. T. Srinivas, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. T. Srinivas, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bhagyamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. H. M. Ramesh Gowda Vs M/S. Power Smart Media Private Limited

Syed Aseem Ahmed Vs Mrs. Hadiya Suman

Gulfeeza Begum Vs the Union of India

M/S Seema Caterers Vs the Union of India

G S Pramoda Vs Smt Sharadamma