IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.24333/2018 (LR-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. NARASAMMA W/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURIST BULLAPUR VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 217.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. YASHAVANTH SAJJANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HONNALI REPRESENTED BY TIS CHAIRMAN HONNALI, DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 217.
3. KODLI AKSHOBA TEERTA MATH KODLI, POST: SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA, PIN: 577 227 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2;
VIDE ORDER DATED:21.08.2019 NO NOTICE TO R-3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:24.10.1996 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN LRF NO.34/1974-75 IN CANCELLING THE GRANT MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT FAMILY VIDE ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Yashwanth Sajjanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt. H.C.Kavitha, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. No notice is issued to respondent No.3 as writ petition is being dismissed at the threshold for the reasons indicated herein below.
2. Petitioner claims to be wife of late Mulemane Halappa, she has questioned the correctness and legality of the order dated
question are tenanted lands and on account of application for grant of occupancy rights in Form No.7 having not been filed, has ordered for resuming of said lands measuring 27 guntas to State. As could be seen from the impugned order above land was granted in favour of husband of petitioner initially by the Land Tribunal by order dated 28.05.1997. Subsequently, it has been noticed that husband of petitioner had not even filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights and as such ordered for resumption of land to the State from petitioner namely, land bearing Sy.No.6/1 measuring to an extent of 26 guntas.
3. The grievance of petitioner is that husband of petitioner was a rustic villager who was not aware of technical aspects and as such he was not knowing about manner in which application is to be filed in Form No.7 for grant occupancy rights of land. When husband of petitioner had sought for grant of occupancy rights and undisputedly he having not filed Form No.7 for grant of such occupancy rights statutorily namely, under Section 44 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, land in question stood vested with the State and as such Tribunal has ordered for resuming the land in question.
4. There is no infirmity either in law or on facts committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order and same would not call for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court. That apart, even on question of delay and latches, petition is liable to be dismissed, inasmuch as, impugned order was passed in the year 1997 and for a period of almost 22 years petitioner has not challenged the said order and no explanation is forthcoming for inordinate delay that has occurred. The principle of ‘delay defeats equity’ would squarely be applicable to the facts obtained in the case on hand.
5. For reasons aforestated, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for entertaining this petition or to issue notice to third respondent. Hence, this Court finds there is no good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, same stands rejected.
Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four (4) weeks from today.
SD/- JUDGE DR