IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANASWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1493 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.161, 10TH CROSS KONANAKUNTE CROSS BANGALORE-560 062 ... APPELLANT (BY SMT KUSUMA R. PRASAD FOR SRI L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVS.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION REVENUE BUILDING NEXT TO CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK REVENUE BUILDING NEXT TO CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) *** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET- ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.62009/2016 AND ALLOW THE PRAYERS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT IN THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard.
2. Appellant in this appeal has challenged order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No.62009/2016.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition.
4. In the year 1991, petitioner purchased 1 Acre of land situated at K.Choodahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru District from one Kenchappa, who was in unauthorized occupation of the same. Kenchappa had submitted an application in Form No.50 on 05.08.1991 for regularization of unauthorized occupation. The grievance of the petitioner is that his Vendor’s application was not considered for nearly 23 years and an endorsement dated 14.09.2016 has been issued stating that the said application could not be considered as the land falls within 18 Kms from BBMP limit.
5. Smt.Kusuma R.Prasad, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that consideration with regard to area of 18 Kms has come into existence on 01.06.1994, whereas the application of his Vendor was pending for nearly more than 23 years. The Government has slept over the matter and has not considered the same. It is further submitted that petitioner’s application for regulatization has not been placed before the Committee for consideration.
6. Mr.S.S.Mahendra, learned AGA, submitted that the petitioner is not the unauthorized occupant and applicant. The application was filed by petitioner’s Vendor. Further, as on the date of submission of the application for regularization of unauthorized occupation, the embargo with regard to distance was in force.
7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records made available.
8. It is not in dispute that the application for regularization of unauthorized occupation was submitted by petitioner’s Vendor. Further as on the date of submission of the application, the embargo with regard to distance was in force. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge does not call for interference.
9. Further, there is a delay of 147 days in preferring this appeal. The reasons stated for condonation of delay are not satisfactory. The appeal has also been considered on merits and in our view there is no error in the impugned order. Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE VK