IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.46025/2016 (LR-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.110, RAMASAGARA VILLAGE MUTTANALLURU POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.A. VISWANATHA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HOSKOTE HOSKOTE TAHASILDAR OFFICE HOSKOTE TLAUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114 REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. SMT. A.R. KANTHALAXMI W/O R. RAMESH BABU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.68, "RATHNADEEPA" DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD KRISHNA TALKIES CROSS ROAD KRISHNA RAJAPARA POST BANGALORE - 560 036.
4. SMT. SARALA D/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.2/8, NEAR LOKESH TENT HOUSE, LINGARAJAPURA BANGALORE - 560 084.
5. SMT. SHESHAMMA D/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
6. SRI. PANDURANGA S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
7. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
8. SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
9. SRI. GOVINDA S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
10. SRI. HARISH S/O BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
11. BHAGYALAXMI D/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
12. BABU NAGARAJ D/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
13. MAHESH S/O LATE BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
NOs. 5 TO 13 R/AT NEAR LOKESH TENT HOUSE LINGARAJAPURA BANGALORE - 560 084.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-4, R-5, R-6, R-8, R-9, R-10, R-12, R-13 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED:15.07.2019 NOTICE TO R-7 AND R-11 ARE ACCEPTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME QUASH THE ORDER DATED:27.06.1979 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HOSAKOTE AT ANNEX-J.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri G A Vishwanath Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner, Sri A.C.Balaraj, learned HCGP appearing for respondents-1 and 2 and Sri D R Ravishankar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-3. Respondents-4 to 13 are served and unrepresented. Notice to respondents-7 & 11 came to be accepted as due service vide order dated 15.07.2019.
2. Petitioner is questioning correctness and legality of the order passed by land Tribunal on 27.06.1979 in LRF (B)HH/4/75-76 - Annexure-J whereunder tribunal has granted occupancy rights of land bearing Sy.No.32/1 measuring 2 acres situated at Halhalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk in favour of Sri V Ramappa. Said Sri V Ramappa had filed a declaration in Form No.7 on 13.01.1976 which came to be registered in LRF(B)HH/4/75-76 and Sri Muninanjappa was arrayed as party respondent and order sheet of the land tribunal would disclose that he was duly served and on his behalf, his wife Smt.Tayamma appeared and she had also entered witness box and deposed that said Sri V Ramappa has been in occupation and enjoyment of land in question and as such, they have no objection for occupancy rights being granted in his favour. Smt.Tayamma has also affixed her LTM to the order sheet before land tribunal as reflected in Annexure-H. Based on the said statement and there being no rival claim, land tribunal has proceeded to pass the orders granting occupancy rights in favour of said Sri V Ramappa by order dated 27.06.1979 (Annexure-J).
3. Assailing the said order, petitioner has contended that order passed by the land Tribunal is against a person who is not the owner of property in question and petitioner’s mother Smt.Nagamma was the owner and she had acquired title to the said property under the sale deed dated 02.09.1966 (Annexure-A) and therefore, she ought to have been made as a party and as such order passed against a person who is not the owner of land is non-est, void and illegal and would not affect right of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned order.
4. On perusal of case papers, it would disclose that Smt.Nagamma during her life time, had not questioned the said order and she expired on 26.10.2004. Tenant in whose favour land Tribunal granted occupancy rights, has executed sale deed in favour of third respondent on 14.10.2005. Subsequently, legal heirs of Smt.Nagamma including petitioner herein have executed deeds of confirmation on 29.08.2012 and 05.07.2012 respectively admitting ownership of third respondent over the land in question. In fact, they had accepted the order passed by land tribunal and also the grant of occupancy rights in favour of vendor of third respondent.
5. Yet another fact which cannot go unnoticed is, one of the signatory to the confirmation deed dated 29.08.2012 – Smt.Sarala who is the daughter of late Sri Muninajappa had filed a suit in O.S.No. 1088/2009 against petitioner and respondents-3 to 13 herein for the relief of partition and separate possession which has been compromised by filing a memo dated 24.09.2012 on account of confirmation deeds dated 05.07.2012 and 29.08.2012 having been executed and receiving a sum of Rs.5 lakhs under the said compromise. In the said suit, petitioner herein was seventh defendant and had not objected for said memo being accepted or suit being dismissed on the strength of said memo dated 24.09.2012 filed by plaintiff therein (Smt.Sarala) who is fourth respondent herein. Thus, petitioner herein was aware of the proceedings of the land tribunal in the year 2009, yet, did not raise her little finger and had kept quiet and after a period of nearly 7 years, she is estopped from challenging the same. On the ground of delay and latches which is staring and has remained unexplained, petition is liable to be rejected. Delay defeats equity. There being no sufficient cause for such inordinate delay in approaching the court, this Court is of the considered view that exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction would not be called for to condone such inordinate delay which has occurred in two stages namely, first stage was from 1979 (date of order of land tribunal) till 2009 i.e., filing of the suit in O.S.No.1088/2009 and from the date of filing of the suit till its dismissal on 24.09.2012 i.e., date of memo being filed by fourth respondent and also commencing from 24.09.2012 till date of filing of this writ petition i.e., 23.08.2019, petitioner has not explained as to what prevented her from approaching this Court to question order of the land tribunal. Apart from these facts, petitioner is also estopped from challenging impugned order as she had executed confirmation deed dated 05.07.2012 confirming right of third respondent over land in question and admitting his ownership which was by virtue of land tribunal’s order. Thus, keeping this writ petition pending would not sub- serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
All pending applications if any, would not survive for consideration and same stands consigned to records.
SD/- JUDGE *sp