IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITIONS No.7934 & 25357/2016(LR-RES) BETWEEN :
1. SRI Y.NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. Y.SRINIVAS PRASAD S/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ALAMBAGIRI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI.B.N.MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL REPRESNETED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CHITHAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT 3. VENKATARAMANASWAMY AND ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE ALMBAGIRI VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY TAHASILDAR CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT (BY SHRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED) ... RESPONDENTS . . . .
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHINTHAMANI IN LRM- 2349/74-75, PERUSE THE SAME AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND QUASH ORDER DATED 12.10.1981 PASSED IN LRM-2349/74-75 ON THE FILE OF LAND TRIBUNAL, AT CHINTHAMANI [ANNEX-D].
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. Shri. B.N. Muralidhar, learned Advocate for petitioners submitted that petitioners’ application for grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act was rejected by order dated 12th October 1981 in proceedings No.LRM-2349/74-75 (Annexure-D) by the Land Tribunal, Chinthamani, on the ground that their application was not found. Thereafter, petitioners claim to have submitted another application on 25.07.1983 (Annexure-G). The said application has been rejected by the Land Tribunal on 22.07.1988 on the ground that second application is not maintainable. Petitioners challenged the said order in W.P.No.10899/91 and by order dated 10.06.1996, this Court dismissed the writ petition. Subsequently, W.A No.8108/1999 filed against order in writ petition has also been dismissed on 29.01.1999.
3. Petitioners have now presented these writ petitions challenging Land Tribunal’s order dated 12th October 1981 on the ground that impugned order is required to be considered afresh.
4. To a pointed question with regard to delay, Shri Muralidhar, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have explained the delay in filing these writ petitions in paragraphs No.11 and 12, which read as follows:
“11. The father of the petitioner being innocent villager was not properly aware of the procedures and due to his ill health and financial problems, he could not further pursue the remedies available to protect his legitimate rights in the property in question. The father of the petitioner who has spent more than three decades to establish his legitimate right in the property and the petitioner being the villagers were also not aware of the further course of remedy to establish their right in the property even though they are cultivating the land till this date. In view of peculiarity of rejection of the application by the tribunal on the ground that the application is not available on record and the finding of this Hon’ble court regarding existence of the application, the petitioners were in total confusion about the availability of the remedy and the forum to be approached.
12. Upon several consultations and analyzing the findings of this Hon’ble Court in WA-8108/1991, as to the fact that the application filed by the father of the petitioner for second time under the same provision of inams abolition act, it is implied that the application field by the father of the petitioner at first instance through RPAD is treated as petition in existence and available for consideration on merits and the orders passed on that application on 12.10.1981 has to be challenged. Due to lack of proper knowledge and confusion in the availability or non-availability of application and also due to death of the father of the petitioner and financial problems of the petitioners, even though they are in possession of the property till date, could not prefer the above petition till this date and hence, there is a considerable delay in filing the above petition to challenge the orders of rejection of the application by the land tribunal vide order dated 12.10.1981 passed in LRM-2349/74-75.”
5. Undisputed facts are, petitioners’ claim has been rejected by impugned order in 1981. Petitioners have filed a subsequent application and the same was also rejected. Challenge to the rejection of second application has been dismissed by this Court in W.P.No.10899/1991 and W.A.No.8108/1998 concluded on 29.01.1999. Reckoned from said date, more than twenty years have elapsed. The explanation given in paragraphs No.11 and 12 of the writ petitions recorded hereinabove shows that petitioners being villagers were not aware of course of remedy. The said reason is too fragile to be countenanced because, petitioners have diligently filed the second application and upon its rejection, challenged the same in writ petition and writ appeal. Therefore, reasons stated in paragraphs No.11 and 12 are unacceptable.
6. Resultantly, these writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed.
7. Learned AGA is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.