IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.53544/2018 (LR) BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHIVANNA S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA, 53 YEARS.
2. SRI RACHAPPA S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA, 49 YEARS.
3. SRI MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA, 45 YEARS.
4. SRI NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA, 42 YEARS.
5. SRI BASAVANNA S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA, 58 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT NALLURU VILLAGE, CHANDAKAVADI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571342. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI CHANDRAIAH, ADV.] AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571342.
2. THE TAHSILDAR CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRCIT-571342.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGALA-571440. CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF DISPUTE FROM THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2002 PASSED IN DISPUTE, THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA ANNEXURE – A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.03.2002 in Dispute No.LRFT No.765/76-77, whereby the Land Tribunal, Chamarajanagara Taluk, (‘Land Tribunal’ for short) has directed to forfeit the land in question to the Government.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are the purchasers of the land measuring 3 acre 23 guntas out of 7 acres 7 guntas of Sy.No.219 of Hondarabalu village, the subject matter of the dispute before the Land Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel Sri. Chandraiah appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were not arrayed as parties in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and were oblivious of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal impugned herein. The petitioners have approached the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal – respondent No.3 invoking the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 which came to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 01.06.2012 and hence, the writ petition.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the order impugned submits that the petitioners have not satisfactorily explained the delay caused in challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 20.03.2002, writ petition is not maintainable at this length of time. On this ground alone, writ petition is liable to be rejected.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it is evident that the petitioners have purchased the subject land in the year 1999 and 2001 during the pendnecy of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal relating to the occupancy rights claimed by the tenant by filing Form No.7 under Section 48(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). The copy of the order dated 20.03.2002 was obtained by the petitioners 3-4 times during 30.05.2003 to 09.11.2004 as recorded by the respondent No.3 in the order dated 01.06.2012. It is strange to notice that having suffered an order of dismissal of appeal on 01.06.2012 in the appeal proceeding before the respondent No.3, no challenge was made by the petitioners till date.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 has held that discretion to condone delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. Sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides is attributed to the party.
7. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs.
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down principles applicable to condone the delay. It is observed that there is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former, doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter, it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
8. In the case at hand, it can indubitably be stated that the petitioners have acted in a negligent manner sleeping over for decades. The subject land was purchased by the petitioners herein during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, which is hit by the principles of lis-pendens applicable to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act very much operates against alienation of agricultural land which is the subject of tenancy claim by any person before the Tribunal (Smt. Siddarajamma vs. The Land Tribunal, Tarikere [1999 (1) KLJ 682]). The inordinate delay and laches caused in approaching this Court is not satisfactorily explained. Hence, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
For the aforegoing reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR