IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.51599/2016 (KLR - LG) BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNANDHAMMA D/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH W/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, INDALAWADI POST KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT [BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY S, ADV.,] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 ... PETITIONER 2. THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL – 560 074 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.06.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner herein is seeking a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to consider her representation for issue of Saguvali Chit in respect of land bearing sy.No.23, situated at Thammanayakanahalli village, Indalawadi Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. It is contended that the aforesaid land was granted in favour of her father in OM No. BES LND(1) SR 4/87-88 dated 12/10/1987. Thereafter it is stated he has not paid the TT fine, Bandiji fee, Phodi fee and other fees which are required to be paid immediately. It is also stated that final notice was issued on 22.08.1994. According to petitioner, the same was not served on them. Since their father died on 14.1.1989, they were not aware of the said proceedings and came to know about the same very recently. Hence, they gave a representation to the authorities on 21.6.2016 seeking issue of Saguvali chit which is not considered. Hence this petition is filed.
2. However, on going through the records, this Court find no justifiable reasons are shown for the delay of nearly 24 years in approaching this Court, seeking issue of Saguvali chit in respect of the land which is said to have been granted in favour of their father 30 years ago. Therefore, in this petition prayer for issue of any direction cannot be entertained in view of latches and delay of 24 years on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court.
For the aforesaid reason, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PSG