IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.27348/2019 (LR) BETWEEN:
SHRI. S. BYRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE SEENAPPA R/AT MUGABALA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLIHOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 114.
(BY SRI. C.R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 103.
2. SMT. LATE NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE BACHANNA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS:
a) SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O SRI. KEMPEGOWDA R/AT MUGABALA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114.
b) SRI. BYRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE BACHANNA R/AT VANACHANAHALLI VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK – 562 114.
c) SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE BACHANNA R/AT VANACHANAHALLI VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114.
3. SRI. M.B. NAGARAJA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT MUGABALA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
4. SRI. ANJENAPPA S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT MUGABALA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
5. SRI. MUNEGOWDA S/O LATE MARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT MUGABALA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
6. SRI. M.B. RAVINDRA S/O LATE BYATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT MUGABALA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
7. SRI. M.B. NARAYANAGOWDA S/O LATE BYATAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT MUGABALA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
(BY SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, AGA FOR R-1; NO NOTICE ISSUED TO OTHERS V/O DATED:14.10.2019) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLANT TRIBUNAL BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.373/2012 DATED:04.01.2019 VIDE ANNX-E AND TO ALLOW THE W.P. WITH COST THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. C.R.Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent No1. No notice is issued to respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(c) and 3 to 7, since petition is being dismissed at the threshold for the reasons indicated herein below. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner filed an application in Form No.7A before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, for grant of land bearing Sy.No.11 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas by specifying the name of village in which said land was situated as “Vanachanahalli”. Said application came to be forwarded to first respondent for adjudication. By order dated 03.11.2014-Annexure-B first respondent rejected the same on the ground that during the course of enquiry petitioner and other applicants had admitted that instead of applying for grant of land in Sy.No.11 of Mugabalu Village, they had submitted the application seeking for grant of Sy.No.11 situated in Vanachanahalli and also in view of their admission to reject the said application on this ground.
3. Being aggrieved by said order appeal came to be filed before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal contending interalia that appellant had not made any admission for dismissing application on the ground that he has not mentioned the name of village correctly and there was no such admission on his part. It was also urged that petitioner being an illiterate person, was not aware of contents of the order sheet dated 15.09.2004 recorded by first respondent and as such order passed by second respondent is liable to be quashed.
4. Since there was inordinate delay of 8 years in filing the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act also came to be filed along with appeal memorandum. Tribunal after considering rival contentions by impugned order dated 04.01.2019 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Sri.C.R.Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has reiterated the grounds urged before the Appellate Tribunal and has also contended that petitioner had only sought for correction of the name of village before first respondent and this has been misconstrued as an admission to withdraw the application and hence, he prays for impugned order being set aside and matter being remanded to first respondent for adjudication afresh.
6. Though said argument at first blush looks attractive, it is not so for the reasons indicated herein below. Firstly, application which came to be filed by petitioner in Form No.7A was for grant of land on the ground that petitioner had failed to submit an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) and as such he is entitled for being granted land under Section 77A of the said Act. Petitioner was fully conscious not only as to the extent of land, which was in his occupation, but also the village in which he is purported to have been cultivating the land uninterruptedly after alleged vesting of land under Section 44 of the Act, yet, with his eyes wide open, had filed an application for grant by filing Form No.7A indicating thereunder the name of village of the land as ‘Vanachanahalli Village’ and not ‘Mugabalu Village”.
7. That apart, impugned order would clearly indicate that petitioner/applicant has admitted before first respondent on 03.11.2010 that instead of filing Form No.7A in respect of Sy.No.11 of Mugabalu Village they had erroneously filed application in respect of Vanachanahalli Village and their application may be dismissed. Hence, question of entertaining their said application for grant of land did not arise.
8. Petitioner being aware of this impugned order, for reasons best known did not challenge the same for a period of 8 years. With an inordinate delay of 8 years, appeal came to be filed contending that petitioner was under the bonafide impression that matter was still pending before first respondent and only when he applied for certified copy of proceedings through his Advocate, he came to know about order of rejection dated 03.11.2004-Annexure-B having been passed by first respondent and as such sought for condonation of delay. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, petitioner has appeared on all the dates of hearing and has affixed his signature before first respondent. In fact, petitioner has affixed his signature in English in order sheet dated 03.11.2004 and certified copy of the said order has been obtained by the petitioner on 17.12.2004 and as such Appellate Tribunal has noticed that cause for delay is not sufficient. Said finding of fact recorded by Tribunal would not call for interference. Hence, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition and it stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR