IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.5868-5869 OF 2017 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:
1. SRI.VEERAPPA SON OF LATE GATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. SRI.NARAYANASWAMY SON OF LATE GATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BETTAHALSUR POST BENGALURU-562 157.
... APPELLANTS (BY SMT.S.SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.RAMESH T.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STAE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT D.C.COMPOUND, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION D.C.COMPOUND, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 009.
4. SMT.SAROJAMMA WIFE OF LATE H.NAGABUSHANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 5. SRI.S.N.ADIKRISHNA SON OF LATE H.NAGABUSHANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. SRI.S.N.PRAKASH @ RAMAMURTHY SON OF LATE H.NAGABUSHANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT SONNAPPANA HALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BETTAHALSUR POST BENGALURU-562 157.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3, SRI.P.M.NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NUMBER AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NOS.28338-39 OF 2017.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.08.2017 in W.P.Nos.28338-09 of 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions were dismissed, the writ petitioners are in appeal.
2. The petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash order dated 13.12.1979 passed by the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli in LRF No.3/74-75; order dated 30.05.1995 passed by respondent No.3 in case No.KNC.ST-190/1995-
96; order dated 03.08.2000 passed by the second respondent in case No.SC.ST(A)45/97-98; order dated 27.7.2016 passed by the second respondent in case No.LND.SC/ST.45/1997-98 and for a direction to resume and restore in favour of the petitioners, the land bearing old Sy.No.23 new Sy.No.74 measuring to an extent of 27 guntas situated at Kadiganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. It is stated that the father of the petitioner late Gate Ramaiah was granted land by order dated 20.08.1965 to an extent of 27 guntas in old Sy.No.23 and new Sy.No.74 by fixing an upset price of Rs.30/- per acre and subsequently waiving the upset price, imposed condition of non-alienation clause for a period of 15 years. The saguvali chit was issued on 01.03.1968. It is stated that the husband of respondent No.4 and father of respondents No.5 and 6 got created lease in his favour and his name came to be entered in the revenue records. The father of respondent No.5 and 6 Late Nagabhushana Reddy filed form No.7 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act seeking occupancy rights as tenant. The Land Tribunal, by order dated 13.12.1979 granted occupancy rights. Thereafter, on 01.02.1995, the father of the petitioners, late Gate Ramaiah moved the third respondent under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘PTCL’ Act) seeking resumption of land. The third respondent- Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 30.05.1997 rejected the application submitted by the father of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners’ father Gate Ramaiah filed an appeal before the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner. During the pendency of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner the father of the petitioners Gate Ramaiah and father of the respondents 4 and 5 Nagabhushana Reddy filed joint memo dated 26.07.1999 to dismiss the appeal. The said memo was pending consideration. In the meanwhile, on 01.04.2000 Gate Ramaiah died. Thereafter considering the memo, the appeal was dismissed on 03.08.2000. Subsequently the petitioners herein filed fresh application before the Deputy Commissioner. The said application came to be dismissed by order dated 27.07.2016. In the meanwhile a suit in O.S.No.409 of 2014 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Devanahalli for declaration and other reliefs was also filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners filed instant writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, by the order dated 28.08.2017 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and by observing that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. Hence the petitioners are in appeal.
3. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is opposed to facts and probabilities of the case and is the result of non-consideration of legal aspects. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the father of the petitioners late Gate Ramaiah belonged to Schedule Tribe community in whose favour 27 guntas of land was granted free of cost with a condition not to alienate for a period of 15 years. When the land is granted free of cost, the land vests with the Government, hence the lease deed in favour of the father of the respondents 5 and 6 is in clear violation of the provisions of PTCL Act. Further it is submitted that the Land Tribunal had no power to confer occupancy rights in respect of the land in question as the same was a granted land. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the object of the Act and to protect the interest of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the 2nd and 3rd respondents passed orders ignoring the provisions of law. Hence prays for allowing the appeals.
5. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents would submit that the learned Single Judge is justified in rejecting the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches. The learned counsels submit that the land was granted in the year 1965 whereas occupancy rights in favour of father of respondents No.5 and 6 was granted on 13.12.1979. Whereas the father of the petitioners initiated resumption proceedings only on 01.02.1995 by making an application before the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner. Hence prays for dismissal of the appeals.
6. Petitioners are the sons of late Gate Ramaiah. Gate Ramaiah was granted 27 guntas of land in old Sy.No.23 and new Sy.No.74 of Kadiganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru by Government Order dated 20.08.1965. Gate Ramaiah executed lease in favour of the father of respondents No.5 and 6 one Nagabhushana Reddy. Nagabhushana Reddy, the father of respondents No.5 and 6 filed form No.7 before the Land Tribunal under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and after enquiry the Land Tribunal by order dated 13.12.1979 granted the land in favour of the father of respondents 5 and 6. After more than 15 years from the date of order of the Land Tribunal, the father of the petitioners filed an application dated 01.02.1995 before the third respondent- Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of PTCL Act for resumption of land. The said application came to be rejected holding that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been granted occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act and for more than 29 years, they are in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. Being aggrieved, the father of the petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Subsequently, he along with Nagabhushana Reddy had filed joint memo dated 26.07.1999 seeking dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 03.08.2000. Before passing the order i.e., on 01.04.2000 Gate Ramaiah died, subsequently in the year 2015, the petitioners made an application before the Deputy Commissioner seeking to set aside order dated 03.08.2000 passed in the appeal. The said application came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is to be noted that the land was granted in the year 1965, Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the father of respondents No.4 and 5 on 13.12.1979. The appeal filed by the petitioners’ father before the Deputy Commissioner came to be dismissed on 03.08.2000. Fifteen years thereafter, the petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner. There is inordinate delay in approaching the Deputy Commissioner for restoration of the appeal as well as in approaching this Court by filing the writ petitions. Any party shall exercise his right within a reasonable period. The petitioners have slept over the matter for long time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2015) 15 SCC page 1 in the case of PRABHAKAR v/s JOINT DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER at paragraph 38 has held as follows:
“38. It is now a well-recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delays as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the Court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. Doctrine of laches is in fact an application of maxim of equity “delay defeats equities”.
7. The above decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that the parties shall exercise their rights within a reasonable time. Non-exercise of right would mean that no right exists.
8. In a similar circumstance, The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case arising under the PTCL Act in the case of MR.VIVEK M HINDUJA AND OTHERS Vs.
MR.M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS in Civil Appeal No.2166 of 2009 decided on 06.12.2017 has held at paragraphs 3, 4 5 and 10 as under:
“3. The original grantees in these cases, who were members of the Scheduled Caste Community, were granted the lands by a common grant sometime in the year 1946- 1947. By that grant each of the grantees was given two acres of land. The successors of the grantees or the grantees themselves transferred the lands to certain individuals sometime in the year 1967. These transferees further transferred the lands after 8/10 years to different persons. The present Appellants are purchasers from the land transferees.
4. Arguments have been addressed before us at length on whether the present Appellants had perfected their titles on the date of the coming into force of the Karnataka Act. We are not inclined to go into this question because the instant matters can be decided on an aspect settled by this Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav and Ors. V. Hari Kishore Yadav (dead) through L.Rs and Ors.
MANU/SC/0781/2017 : 2017 (6) Scale 459 and Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Anr. MANU/SC/1814/2017 : 2018 (6) Kar.
L.J. 792 (SC), C.A.No.1390 of 2009, dated 26-
10-2017. In these two decisions, one of which arose under the Karnataka Act, this Court has held that the authorities entrusted with the power to annul proceedings purported to have been made by the original grantees, must exercise their powers to do so, whether on an application, or suo motu, within a reasonable time since no time is prescribed by law for taking such action. In the decided cases, action had been initiated after about 20 to 25 years of the coming into force of the Karnataka Act.
5. In the present cases, it is undisputed that the action had been initiated after almost 20 years from the coming into force of the Karnataka Act. In principle, we do not see any reason why the delay in the present cases should be considered to be reasonable. There is no material difference between the period of delay in the present cases and the decided cases.
6. ….xxx…xxx… 7. ….xxx…xxx… 8. ….xxx…xxx… 9. ….xxx…xxx… 10. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even to suo motu actions.”
9. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision, the appeals are liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. As the writ petitions are being dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, the question of examining the grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel would not arise. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms