Dismissed¶¶42

Smt.Susheela Narayan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2025WA/48/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WA No. 48 of 2025 (LA-BDA); decided 20-01-2025 by N. V. Anjaria CJ and M. I. Arun J. Keywords: writ appeal dismissed; land acquisition; Notification dated 03.06.1959; declaration of lapse; Writ Petition No. 25614 of 2024; delay of sixty years; public policy against stale litigation; laches/delay; possession contention not examinable after six decades; no interference with Single Judge's order; Bangalore Development Authority; State of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

Sixty years is too long a time to permit a litigant to assert his claim on any ground; as a matter of public policy, litigation after a yawning gap of sixty years should not be permitted or entertained. ¶¶36

Smt.Susheela Narayan Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2142-DB WA No. 48 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUSHEELA NARAYAN WO LATE B N LAKSHMINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS

¶10

SRI. L AMARNATH

¶11

S/O LATE B N LAKSHMINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDE SRI. L. AJAY i.e., APPELLANT NO.3

¶12

SRI. L. AJAY

¶13

S/O LATE B N LAKSHMINARAYAN

¶14

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶16

SRI. L AVINASH

¶17

S/O LATE B N LAKSHMINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶18

ALL RESIDING AT NO.13, 59^TH A CROSS, 4^TH N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 010

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA KOUSHIK R S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS S V, ADVOCATE)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2142-DB WA No. 48 of 2025

¶22

AND:

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶24

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. K.S.HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 04.12.2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.25614 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, ETC

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2142-DB WA No. 48 of 2025

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶33

Heard learned advocate Mr. R.S. Subramanya Koushik for learned advocate Mr. S.V. Srinivas for the appellants and learned Government Advocate Mr. K. S. Harish for respondent No.1.

¶34

The challenge in this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 25614 of 2024.

¶35

The prayer made by the petitioners in the writ petition was to declare that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question had lapsed, which were undertaken pursuant to the Notification dated 03.06.1959.

¶36

It is after a gap of six decades that the petition came to be filed challenging the declaration and the notification of the year 1959. Sixty years is too long a time to permit a litigant to assert his claim on whatever ground. It is indeed a part of public policy that litigation after yawning gap of sixty years should not be permitted and should not be entertained.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:2142-DB WA No. 48 of 2025

¶39

5. An attempt was made by learned advocate for the appellants

¶40

to contend that the appellants were in possession. The Court is afraid whether this aspect even could be gone into after 60 years.

¶41

The judgment and order of learned Single Judge could be said to be eminently just, fair and proper. No interference is called for. When learned Single Judge has taken a view that after gap of 60 years, the petitioners-appellants are not entitled to relief.

¶42

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶43

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶45

VMB

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt.Susheela Narayan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Susheela Narayan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.K.B. Chandra Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Aswathnarayana v Vs Sri. Tejas Kumar

B.Nagaraj Vs Sri.J.K.Prasad

Mr E Mohan Rao Vs the Commissioner

M/S Hkbk College of Engineering Vs Sri Ramachandrappa

Sri Rajashekar a Hiremath Vs Principal Secretary to Government