The State of Karnataka Vs H B Munivenkatappa

DR. M. CHANDRASHEKARA, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, SRI. M. MOHANASUNDAR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.314, "DWARAKA", INNER CIRCLE, WHITE FIELD, NEAR K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶20

THE CHAIRMAN LAND TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560009.

¶21

NAMMA WHITEFIELD RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION FEDERATION, C/O. S.V.MILAN APARTMENTS. NO.1352, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ROAD, UPKAR LAYOUT, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ AND SRI. K.PRAJWAL, ADVOCATES FOR R8; NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 08.10.2021)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 27.12.1980 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGAORE IN CASE NO. LRF 5063/79-80 (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - WP No.26097 of 2018

¶27

CAV ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

¶29

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of

¶30

the Constitution of India by the State of Karnataka, through its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department raising a challenging to the order dated 27.12.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk in case No.LRF.5063/79-80.

¶31

By order dated 08.10.2021, respondent No.8, Residents Welfare Association Federation was permitted to be brought on record as party-respondent to the proceedings, to support the petitioner-State and its authorities.

¶32

Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Kiran V.Ron, appearing for the petitioner-State and its authorities submitted that old Sy.No.15 of Pattandur Agrahara village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is a tank bed. Although subsequently, it is assigned new Sy.No.54, nevertheless, the revenue records clearly show

¶33

that the land in question is a tank bed and therefore, the

¶34

4 -

¶35

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶36

Land Tribunal could not have re-granted the lands to Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa (respondent No.1, since dead, is represented by his legal representatives). However, since question of delay is raised by the contesting respondents, learned AAG submitted that in the memorandum of writ petition details of the events, chronologically have been given. Sri.H.P.Munivenkatappa filed O.S.No.394/1993 before the II Additional Munsiff, Bangalore seeking declaration against the State of Karnataka and the revenue authorities that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property based on the orders of the Land Tribunal and the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interference. The suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff, therefore Regular Appeal was filed by the State and its authorities in R.A.No.38/2004 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and the same was dismissed on 17.12.2008. Being aggrieved, the State and its authorities preferred a Second Appeal in RSA No.2166/2006.

¶37

5 -

¶38

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶39

4. In the meanwhile, Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa

¶40

had approached the revenue authorities to have his name entered in the RTC and on failure to enter his name in the RTC, contempt proceedings were initiated against the Special Tahasildar. Arrest warrant was also issued against the Special Tahasildar and the then Special Tahasildar Sri.Boraiah had filed W.P.No.4335/2006 challenging the arrest warrant. Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa also filed W.P.No.39159/2002 challenging the action of the revenue authorities declining to enter his name in the revenue records. A Civil Revision Petition was filed by the State of Karnataka and the revenue authorities in CRP.No.62/2005 being aggrieved of the rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing the regular appeal. A Division Bench of this court considered all these matters, including W.P.No.12895/2005 filed by the State and its authorities seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.394/1993, as well as the orders passed by the Land Tribunal on 27.12.1980.

¶41

Learned AAG submits that the Division Bench

¶42

6 -

¶43

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶44

of this court allowed RSA No.2166/2006 while condoning the delay 9 years 7 months in preferring the appeal before the first appellate court and restored R.A.No.38/2004 and remanded the matter back to the lower appellate court to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. On remand, R.A.No.38/2004 was once again dismissed by the lower appellate court by order dated 17.12.2008. However, it was pointed out that the lower appellate court granted liberty to the State and its authorities to workout their remedies by challenging the legality of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The State and its authorities preferred RSA.No.142/2009, which was dismissed 24.11.2016. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.D11308/2018 was dismissed on 13.04.2018 at the hands of the Apex Court. This writ petition is filed on 18.06.2018, without much delay. Learned AAG submits having regard to the liberty given by the lower appellate court to challenge the validity and correctness of the order dated 27.12.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal, this writ petition has been filed.

¶45

7 -

¶46

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶47

6. Learned AAG submitted that the Division

¶48

Bench of this court while considering RSA No.2166/2006 clubbed with W.P.No.12895/2005, W.P.No.39159/2002, W.P.No.4335/2006 and CRP No.62/2005, no doubt

¶49

framed and considered three important issues, viz:

¶50

1. Whether the suit schedule land which is “Kere Angala” could have been granted to Inamdar at all?

¶51

1. Whether it could have been granted to a person who has purchased the schedule land after the schedule land vested with the Government?

¶52

1. Whether any such grant at all?

¶53

However, after summoning all relevant

¶54

records, the Division Bench remanded the matter with a direction to the lower appellate court to enquire into the matter, find out as to whether application in Form No.7 was filed by H.P.Munivenkatappa; whether an inquiry was held by the Land Tribunal; whether an order was passed by the Land Tribunal. On remand, the lower appellate

¶55

8 -

¶56

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶57

court found that there is an entry in the register evidencing the fact that application was filed by Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa before the Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition. The lower appellate court has come to a conclusion that the Land Tribunal held an enquiry and passed the impugned order dated 27.12.1980 re-granting the lands in favour of Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa. However, since for the first time after thorough enquiry, the court had come to the conclusion that application in Form No.7 was indeed filed by Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa and order was passed by the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights/re-grant in favour of Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa and since no occasion earlier arose for the State and its authorities to raise a challenge to the said order, liberty was reserved by the lower appellate court to the State and its authorities to challenge the impugned order. In that view of the matter, learned AAG submitted that the writ petition is maintainable and this court should go into the question as to the legality and correctness of the impugned order.

¶58

9 -

¶59

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶60

8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.P.N.Manmohan,

¶61

appearing for the contesting respondent No.1, submitted that even if it is a fact that the lower appellate court granted liberty to the State and its authorities to challenge the legality of the impugned order, nevertheless, such orders were passed by the lower appellate court on 17.12.2008. The State and its authorities should have raised a challenge to the impugned order, immediately thereafter. The State and its authorities having failed in thier endeavour to evict Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa commencing from 1979, when a notice was issued by the then Tahasildar seeking to evict Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa and a writ petition filed by Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa in W.P.No.7908/1979 was allowed, quashing the notice dated 11.06.1979 issued by the Tahasildar and the finding of the lower appellate court regarding the genuineness of the impugned order, in its order dated 17.12.2008 attained finality at the hands of the Apex Court, the State and its authorities are estopped from filing this writ petition. It is submitted that

¶62

10 -

¶63

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶64

the issue regarding the genuineness of the impugned order having been raised and considered in the original suit filed by Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa, verified and affirmed by the lower appellate court in the second round of litigation, this writ petition is hit by the principles of res judicata . It is submitted that there is a delay of nearly 20 years in raising a challenge to the impugned order, if not 38 years, from the date of the impugned order.

¶65

It is further pointed out from the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate court, which held a thorough inquiry regarding the application filed by Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa in Form No.7 and the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, that the contention of the revenue authorities regarding the land in question being part of “tank bed”, was negated by the Land Tribunal. It was found that in Pattandur Agrahara village there were only two tanks or water bodies, as found in the revenue records which were designated as ‘sarakari kere’. Those two tanks were in Sy.No.85 and 124 of Pattandur Agrahara village. It was therefore clear that there were

¶66

11 -

¶67

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶68

no tank bed in Sy.No.54, or old Sy.No.15 which is the land in question. There being such clear finding rendered by the lower appellate court, the State and its authorities should not be permitted to re-open the issue once again. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.1 and its family members should be permitted to enjoy the fruits of the long litigation, having succeeded throughout before the courts of law.

¶69

Learned counsel Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj has made submission on behalf of respondent No.8, seeking to espouse public cause. The learned counsel has supported the arguments of the learned AAG, while contending that a public property in the nature of a water tank should not be permitted to be usurped by the contesting respondents.

¶70

Heard Sri.Kiran V.Ron, learned AAG for Sri.K.P.Yoganna, learned AGA, Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6, Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj and K.Prajwal, learned counsels for respondent No.8 and perused the petition papers.

¶71

12 -

¶72

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶73

12. It would be relevant to notice that a Division

¶74

Bench of this court made great efforts to secure the original records, having raised three important issues, as noticed hereinabove. It has been the contention of the petitioner-State and its authorities that the land in question forms the part of “Kere Angala” or tank bed and therefore, the Land Tribunal could not have conferred occupancy rights or could not have re-granted the lands to Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa. It was also contended that no such order was passed by the Land Tribunal in favour of Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa. A question mark was put on the document, i.e., the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The Division Bench noticed the earlier orders passed in W.P.No.7908/1979, where the certified copy of the order of the Land Tribunal was verified. It was noticed that the learned Government Pleader, after verifying the records of the Land Tribunal in case No.LRF.5063/79-80, admitted that such an order was indeed passed by the Land Tribunal. This court noticed the fact that similar contention was raised and considered by the Land

¶75

13 -

¶76

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶77

Tribunal as to whether the land in question forms part of tank bed. It was noticed that the order of the Land Tribunal which was marked as exhibit-S shows that as some portion of the land was acquired for the purpose of sinking bore-wells and construction of road, the Government had acquiesced to the position that the land in question was no more a tank bed. The Division Bench found from the records that 20 guntas of land in the same survey number were acquired by the State Government in the year 1931 and the second acquisition of 30 guntas by the State Government was in 1955. It was therefore, held that the acquisition of the land was prior to the vesting on 01.02.1959, under the Statute.

¶78

But the Division Bench also noticed that the contentions of the Government that one Smt.Ramakka w/o Shikari Muniyappa and Sri.T.Venkatappa s/o Thimma Reddy had filed applications for grant of occupancy rights in the same survey number and the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition rejected the applications on the ground that the lands form part of the tank bed and it

¶79

14 -

¶80

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶81

cannot be re-granted. Similar application filed by Captain Thyagarajan Pillai was also rejected by the Special Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, it was doubtful as to whether Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa had subsequently filed application in Form No.7 under Section 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act. It is for this reason that the Division Bench allowed RSA No.2166/2006 filed by the State of Karnataka, while condoning the delay 9 years 7 months in preferring the regular appeal. The matter was remanded to the lower appellate court to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that as the State had already preferred a regular appeal challenging the order passed in O.S.No.394/1993, a writ petition challenging the very same order is not maintainable. However, since the State and its authorities contended that there was no such order at all, the said question also was to be gone into by the lower appellate court.

¶82

15 -

¶83

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶84

The lower appellate court, after re-considering

¶85

the matter on remand conclusively decided that the records furnished by the Government regarding the application filed by Smt.Ramakka and Sri.Venkatappa were bogus. It was noticed that the applications are said to have been filed on 26.01.1960, being ‘Republic Day’, was a holiday and therefore, there was no occasion for the Special Deputy Commissioner or Special Tahasildar (Inams) to reject such applications. On the other hand, the original revenue records, more particularly, Ex.A19RTC reveals that 11 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.54 were re-granted in favour of Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa in case No.LRF.5063/79-80 and the RTC bears the signatures of three concerned officials. It was also found that in the original records, the word ‘Sarakari Kere’ were clandestinely inserted, recently in an ink pen. Such acts were done to deprive Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa of his legitimate claims.

¶86

The lower appellate court has also found on perusal of exhibits R1 to R18, that the encumbrance

¶87

16 -

¶88

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶89

certificates reveal the fact that sale deeds have been executed in respect of the land in question commencing from the year 1927. Sri.Thimmaiah purchased the lands in question on 10.11.1927; Sri.Armugam Pillai Thyagarajan purchased the lands on 07.11.1947. Revenue entries have been made in favour of the purchasers. These facts reveal that at no point of time the revenue authorities or the State raised any question on the sale transactions and maintenance of the revenue records in favour of the purchasers, on the ground that the land is part of a tank bed. Further, the lower appellate court has found from the records that in Sy.No.54 survey sketches are available from the year 1958 and it was never recorded as water tank. On the other hand, sale transactions are found on various pieces in Sy.No.54, in the year 1918, 1947, 1960. The Land Tribunal has therefore recorded the fact that the survey records do not record the existence of water tank or tank bed commencing from the year 1920.

¶90

In that view of the matter, since the very

¶91

17 -

¶92

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶93

same issues were raised and considered by the civil court, more particularly, the lower appellate court, confirmed by a Division Bench of this court in subsequent RSA No.142/2009 dated 24.11.2016 and further affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP(Civil)No.D11308/2018 dated 13.04.2018, this court should uphold the contentions of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that this writ petition is hit by the principles of res judicata .

¶94

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 is right in seeking support of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIM VS PRAKASAN AND OTHERS 2025 INSC 764 , where it was held that “ the original court as well as any higher court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct. The principles of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings” .

¶95

18 - WP No.26097 of 2018

¶96

18. Similarly, on the question of delay and laches,

¶97

the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is also right in pointing out to MRINMOY MAITY VS CHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 551 , where it was held as follows:

¶98

“11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. This Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v. State of W.B and others, (2009) 1 SCC 768 has held to the following effect:

¶99

"56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches.

¶100

19 -

¶101

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶102

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261], Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969] ). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110], Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84]).

¶103

58. There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before the court depending on and varying from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose."

¶104

In the considered opinion of this court, there

¶105

was no need for the lower appellate court to have granted such liberty to the petitioner-State and its authorities to question the order of the Land Tribunal passed in the year 1980. The decision of the lower appellate court was rendered on 17.12.2008. Even otherwise, there is a delay of nearly 20 years in filing this writ petition, raising a challenge to the order of the Land

¶106

20 -

¶107

WP No.26097 of 2018

¶108

Tribunal dated 27.12.1980, from the date of the judgment of the lower appellate court. Moreover, the State and its authorities have taken a chance in preferring Regular Second Appeal before this court and by filing Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. If this writ petition is entertained, it would amount to affording a second chance to the petitioner-State and its authorities to re-agitate the same issue. As reiterated again and again, the law of limitation is applicable to the State like any other person and no exception can be carved out for the State.

¶109

For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that this writ petition filed by the State of Karnataka, assailing order dated 27.12.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk in case No.LRF.5063/79-80, cannot be entertained.

¶110

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶111

Sd/(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶112

MBS CT:VH

The State of Karnataka v. H B Munivenkatappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. H B Munivenkatappa

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

Dr Gopala a Vs Karnataka State Eligibility Test (Kset) Center

Pranava K N Vs the Karnataka State Law University

Gravity One Living Space Pvt. Ltd., Vs Naagamma

Sri H T Mariyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Murthy G Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Bette Gowda Vs State of Karnataka