IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.56685/2015 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN SMT. MANJULA D/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KEMPANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (By Sri S.R.DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-09.
3. SMT. ANURADHA BHARATH W/O. SRI. VISHNU BHARATH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 450, 7TH MAIN, JAYANAGARA 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 011. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.09.1999 PASSED BY R-2 TO THE EFFECT OF CONVERSION OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.6/2, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 31½ GUNTAS, OF HEELALAGE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT IN FAVOUR OF R-3, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 & 2.
2. On the oral request made by the counsel for petitioner, he is permitted to correct the mistake committed in mentioning the name of the grandfather of the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the memorandum of writ petition by mentioning it as Kachiga @ Kachappa, instead of Muniga.
3. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.09.1999 passed by respondent No.2 – Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, thereby granting permission for conversion of land measuring 31½ guntas comprised in Sy.No.6/2 of Heelalage Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, from agricultural use to non- agricultural use. The present writ petition is filed on 14.12.2015 after lapse of 16 years from the date of the order of conversion.
4. It is the contention of petitioner that she has filed a suit for partition in respect of the property in question which has been still pending and during the pendency of the suit, she learnt about creation of revenue entries during the month of May, 2014; thereafter, she filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner; the appeal was disposed of on 28.07.2015 by observing that revenue entries would be subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.1073/2007; such being the case, she recently learnt about the conversion of the property in question as the RTC of the property in question did not disclose any such order of conversion, petitioner was unable to know about the order passed, hence there was delay.
5. This explanation offered for condonation of delay of nearly 16 years in preferring this writ petition cannot be accepted.
Petition has to be, therefore, dismissed solely on the ground of delay and latches. If the petitioner has filed a suit against respondent No.3 and the same is pending as urged by her, petitioner would be entitled to take the benefit of the judgment to be rendered in the suit, in accordance with law. There is no justification for interference with the order of conversion after such long lapse of time.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondents 1 & 2 within three weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS