IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L.NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.983/2019 (LR) BETWEEN:
SMT.DEJAMMA W/O.SRI DEVANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/AT ATTRABAIL HOUSE UJIRE VILLAGE & POST BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 214 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A.KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR, AUTHORISED OFFICER (LAND REFORMS) BELTHANGADY A.C.OFFICE, PUTTUR D.K.574 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP.NO.21416/2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T There is an inordinate delay of 974 days in preferring this appeal.
2. Petitioner-appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.21416/2016 .
3. It is the case of the Petitioner-appellant that four persons namely, Smt.Duggamma Hengsu, Sri Monta Malekudiya, Sri Neelayya Malekudiya and Sri Birmana Malekudiya filed applications for grant of lands under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The aforesaid Sri Monta Malekudiya and Sri Neelayya Malekudiya claimed grant of lands, which belong to the petitioner-appellant. The Assistant Commissioner on 24.05.2001 has rejected the said applications on the ground that the lands were vested with the Government. The petitioner challenging the legality of the same, had approached this Court after 15 years by filing a petition in WP.No.21416/2016 calling in question the order of the Assistant Commissioner. This Court by its order dated 20.06.2016 has rejected the writ petition on the short ground of delay and laches. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in this appeal.
4. The petitioner had approached this Court in writ petition after 15 years, which is not a reasonable time. The reasons to explain the delay of 15 years are not cogent and satisfactory. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. Even in presenting this appeal there is an inordinate delay of 974 days. No satisfactory reasons are forthcoming to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed and the order passed in the writ petition is confirmed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA.Nos.1/2019 for condonation of delay and 2/2019 for stay do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE LB