IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.25120/2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN SRIMAD RAMBHAPURI SAMTHANA (BALEHONNUR) KHASA SHAKA MUTT, YEDIYUR, PREETHADHIPATHI SHATASTHALA BRAHMA SRI RENUKA SHIVACHARYA SWAMIJI, YEDIYUR KSHETRA, YEDIYUR BY HIS P.A.HOLDER SRI PRABHUDEV KALMATH S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O SRI JAGADGURU RAMBHAPURI VEERA SIMHASANA MAHA SAMSTHANA PEETA, BALEHONNUR TALUK, N R PURA, DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESHCHANDRA, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATHRAJ M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572102 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3. THE TALUK PANCHAYATH KUNIGAL, KUNIGAL TALUK-572130 TUMKUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
4. THE YEDIYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH YEDIYUR, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572142 REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
5. SRI THONTADA SIDDALINGESWARA KAINKARYA, (DOSOHA) SEVA SANGA (REGD.) YEDIYUR, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572142 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
(BY SRI M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP.) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1, IN GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 13.1.2015 UNDER ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, TUMKUR DATED 1.4.2008 UNDER ANNEXURE- A1 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader accepts notice on behalf of first respondent.
3. Petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 13.01.2015 on the appeal preferred by the petitioner and registered as appeal No.grapa.165/Gpasa.2013, Bengalur and quash the order dated 01.04.2008 allotting certain properties to the 5th respondent herein. On a query from the court with regard to the delay of more than four years in approaching the court the excuse set-out by the learned counsel is that copy of the same was not furnished to the petitioner. To state the least, the said explanation set-out by the petitioner is not only unconvincing but cannot be believed for the short reason that the appeal came to be heard and disposed off at the instance of the petitioner who was the appellant. It is relevant to note that it is the petitioner who had approached this court in W.P. No.8550/2011 impugning an endorsement by the appellate authority that the appeal should be taken up for consideration after disposal of the suit registered as O.S. No.93/2010. This court accepting the case canvassed by the petitioner set- aside the endorsement and directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose off the appeal on any of the grounds that the appellate authority deem fit including maintainability. Accordingly, an order is passed on 13.01.2015 rejecting the appeal.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard and that despite his attempts to obtain certified copies by way of applications dated 03.03.2015, 16.04.2018 his efforts did not bear fruit thereof. He alleges that he also preferred an application under the Right to Information Act on 17.04.2018 and the same also came to be rejected on 03.05.2018. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel that non-consideration of the application for certified copies nor rejecting the application under Right to Information Act have been questioned. Admittedly, the petitioner has been negligent and indolent in asserting his rights. The learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly admit that the petitioner could have approached this court for an appropriate relief in the event the petitioner was aggrieved by the denial of certified copy of the order passed in appeal. It was always open to the petitioner to seek for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus to issue the certified copy of the order in an appeal. This belated writ petition, in the opinion of this court cannot be entertained as the instant writ petition is vitiated by delay and laches.
5. Be that as it may, it is seen that the 5th respondent has already instituted a suit registered as O.S. No.93/2010 and pending on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kunigal. It is the case of the petitioner that the said suit is at the stage of cross-examination. The said suit is preferred by the 5th respondent. The claims of the petitioner is that the site which is allegedly allotted to the 5th respondent is actually the property of the petitioner and that the 4th respondent-gram panchayat has no authority or title over the said property. The gram panchayat on the contrary is said to have allotted the site in lieu of the land said to have been acquired and utilised by the panchayat for the public purpose. The said proceedings of the gram panchayat have been appreciated and upheld by the first respondent.
6. From the above narration it is apparent that the issue that is being canvassed by the petitioner involves adjudication of title in immovable property. It is contended by the petitioner that the gram panchayat owns no land at all and hence, there could not have been any grant. If that be so, it was for the petitioner to have approach the civil court to have the disputed facts adjudicated in a suit and after a full-fledged trial and not by this court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the opinion of this court, it would not be appropriate for this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to dwell upon and adjudicate the disputed facts.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR