IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1202/2019 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN:
SRI. N.G. SOMASHEKAR S/O GUDNAPPA AGED 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST NALLAKKANA DODDI VILLAGE THARALU POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT PIN-560 082 ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI. JAGADEESHACHARI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 009 3. THE CHAIRMAN REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION LAND GRANT COMMITTEE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. D. NAGARAJ, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25/03/2019 IN WP NO.12528/2018 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant who is the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has impugned the order dated 25th March 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The case made out by the petitioner in his writ petition was that his father was in unauthorised possession of the land measuring 2 acres more particularly described in paragraph No.I of the writ petition. His case is that on 15th July 1991, his father applied for regularisation in Form No.50. On 29th August 2015, petitioner’s father died. It is only thereafter, i.e., on 5th August 2016 and on 6th April 2017, the petitioner made representations, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures ‘E’ & ‘F’. In both the representations, he referred to the application made by his father on 15th July 1991 and prayed for action on the basis of Form No.50 submitted by his father. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by observing that as per order dated 22nd December 2010 passed by the Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited, the lands which are situated within 18 Kms. from the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike are not considered for regularisation of unauthorised occupation and in respect of lands which are already regularised, the regularisation should be cancelled. The learned Single Judge found that land which is stated to be in occupation of the petitioner was identified as land situated within the distance of 18 Kms. from the said Mahanagara Palike and therefore, as per the list prepared pursuant to the amendment of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the application of the petitioner cannot be considered.
3. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a very limited prayer was made before the learned Single Judge seeking issue of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application in Form No.50 submitted by his father on 15th July 1991. He submitted that it was for the Government Authorities to decide whether the land was situated within the distance of 18 kms. He submitted that in any case, the application was pending from the year 1991 and the embargo got into action on 21st December 2010. Hence, it will not apply to the case of the petitioner. He also relied upon the order dated 13th April 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.56000/2014 (Sri J.Babu Vs. State of Karnataka & others). He submitted in the similar fact situation, the learned Single Judge directed the concerned respondents to dispose of the application made in Form No.50 in the year 1991 by the petitioner in the said writ petition.
4. The learned AGA points out that in the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner has not challenged the finding of the learned Single Judge that the land is situated within 18 kms from the Mahanagara Palike.
5. We have considered the submissions and perused the memorandum of appeal. In paragraph No.III of the impugned order, there is a finding recorded by the learned Single Judge which reads as follows:
“3. In that view of the matter, the land which is said to be in occupation of the petitioner being identified as land situate within 18 kms. from Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike limits as per the list prepared pursuant to the amendment of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The application of the petitioner cannot be considered by the authorities. Therefore, the question of granting any direction to the respondents does not arise.”
6. In the memorandum of appeal, there is no challenge to the said finding. On the contrary, from paragraph No.10 of the grounds, it appears that the contention of the appellant is that the order putting an embargo was passed on 22nd December 2010 and therefore, the same will not apply to the case of the petitioner as the application was made in the year 1991. As stated above, the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition on the ground that the prayer for regularisation cannot be considered in view of the order dated 22nd December 2010. Thus, there is no factual dispute with regard to the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.3 of the impugned order which we have quoted above. In view of the above discussion, the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with.
7. There is one more aspect of the matter. The application in Form No.50 was made on 15th July 1991 by the petitioner’s father who died on 29th August 2015. In the writ petition, it is not pleaded that from 15th July 1991 during the period of 24 years, petitioner’s father either pursued the application or made any grievance with any authority regarding failure to dispose of the said application. Only after 25 years of filing of the said application, i.e., on 5th August 2016, the petitioner made his representation for the first time making a grievance about the failure to dispose of the application dated 15th July 1991. There is absolutely no explanation for long inaction of 24 years by petitioner’s father. If these factual aspects are considered, the writ petition deserved to be thrown out also on the ground of gross and unexplained delay.
8. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the order dated 13th February 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge will not help him for the reason that the learned Single Judge has passed the order without going into the issue of delay and latches as well as applicability of the order dated 22nd December 2010 passed by the Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited.
9. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Yn.