IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6"" DAY OF JANUARY, 2010;}:
PRESENT 'uu
THE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE MAN3L;LA.Vc}%:'ELLéj1'R
& _ , _
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.:\:{vE:'\';:LJ'L3T%O'ré_A-:;AA[§;'OjxA{LO'A__ ']
WRIT APPEAL NOf2683/42069 (T<vO,A)f " "
BETWEEN: 'V V V.
1. Smt. iviuraiyamma V _«
Aged about 70 yeaE'S,~ - Q ;
w/o. late Sri. Toti Nagappi' :
2. Sri. Muni §.'ei?a_gépa,:=._ _
Aged a_bouatu 41%}_.y_ear_s,__ _
S/0. Late Toti
Aged' about 33."year.S,'*-._
S/O. late »Si'i."<TO'{i 'N,_a"g-appa.
4. S§TT1t..AmVma.,\{V\?a'mrTTa
/1\'§I~'5;*C1 about 4'2~y-ears,
"D/O". fLa_t'e,Sri. Toti Nagappa,
V " W] EL» AS rinivasa.
A }3\All aEe.V'VT'E§Si'dentS of
""Sam'pige'hal|i Village,
Bannfzrghatta Post,
.. Jigawni Hobli, Ar1ei<alTa|uEy Sri. (3. Papa' Reddy, Adv.)
Bangaiore District.
" APPELLANTS
¥~.J
AND:
1 .
State of Karnataka
Revenue Department,
Vikas Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore -- 566 801.
The Tahsiidar,
Anekal Taluk, Anekal,
Bahgaiore District.
Smt. Rudramma,
Aged about 61 years,
W/0' Late Sri.ShankaVrapp»a, "
Resident of Sampig'e_hraI_i'i "a_/itla'ge","f]-A
Bannerghatta Post, Jigani Ffiobii,
Anekaf TaIu1<.,. Bangvari-oreijbistrrct. '
Sri. S.Chaj--:odr;ashekar,7._ "" "
Aged aE5out"'--36'"yeabrs,[j--.c _ V.
S/0. Late.VS'ha.h'§<arap»pa',' ~ _
Res':'d'er;t,o?:f Sar%::'pig'eh'a!ii ViHag'e,
Banne_rgha'tta--~Post,V._ - I
fliganj Hobié, Adeka:.tjca.1gg_.,
Bangaiore Di's.tri"ct'. ,. '
(By_s'r:. c..T.R.VSr'inV_i'V\'/ats, AGA for R1 & R2;
RESPONDENTS
Appeal is fiied under section 4 of the
“E?{nV’g.h_i.~Court Act praying to set aside the order
r5as’s’éd _.i’.¥.?’:_.7the Writ Petition No.6756/2008 dated
-V 24/’O5./;’Qo9″.’
A Vd”~«_.”E”his appeai coming on for preiiminary hearing, this
“¢§y,’tvENuGorvALA GOWDA, 3, deiivered the following:
Lo.)
JQDQMENT
Land bearing Survey i\1o.205 measuring
guntas situated at Bannerghatta \/iliage,
Anekai Taiuk is a Thoti Service In_a.m,_i,anc3″a’tta–ei:.ed” t’o.Vthe’°’
Viiiage Office of Thoti of aannerghattjar~ijiiiag_e’;~
iaw of appeliant No.1 and gi’an”d.father~ of appeiia.ri’tvs..2–~3to
was holding the viiiage Th.otit_._and2§ was in
possession of said _Thoti Nagappa,
husband of aPP§!I§;nt i’éo’.’t– o:fgV’.:i§i’p.peiiants 2 to 4,
succeeded performing his
diities’t’att’aeh’:ed the Karnataka Viiiage
,{‘the Act’ for short) came into
operationifan”app!iea.tiofi’nVdated 02.12.1966 was made by
sav.é:d§”:~ ;_i\J:agi_appaV””-~a–i–ong with his brother Gurappa.
‘husband of respondent No.3 and father of
.responde’rit”I__Nro.4, had aiso made an appiication for regrant,
on the. strength of an agreement of saie. The
Tiahasildar/respondent No.2, foiiowing the ratio of iaw iaid
‘down by this Court in the case of LAKSHMAN GOWDA VS.
2
STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS (1981(1) KAR.L.J 1) has
granted occupancy rights to said Shankarappa by4,aVn»._o’r.der
dated 12.07.1984 (Annexure–D to the writ pe_t:’_iti’on..]i;~—-.:
said order was questioned by thepagppeiian-ts»nei,ein:b«efore-«..
the Appeilate Authority/District Chourt_-~a€ter2at)o’ut4’2’2f-yVe~ars
by fiiing an application fof condonation
Appeilate Authority/learned regard
to the inordinate appiication fiied
under Section S’.Ovf the-i;.i–n1itat’i~ori_A’ct’i..andg,”c’onsequentiy the
appeai _i.§ni:itatVio’i’i”i(Annexure-i~i to the
writ questioned in the writ
petition, Siragfllte Judge has rejected, both
on thetoue:stion’~–otidei’a’$;:a’s’.weil as on merits. Hence, this
wrii;’ap.peai.V writ petitioners.
Papi Reddy, iearned advocate appearing for
“th’ei’appe–§.iar5it’contended that, regrant made in favour of
respondhents 3 & 4 is totally iliegai and hence, ought to
xghave heen interfered with both by the Appellate Authority
Learned Singie Judge. The order of regrant being a
t
/
_,,..
nuility, could be the subject matter of challenge even after
a lapse of certain time and in view of the decision of this
court in the case of YAMUNAPPA VS. DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (20o1(4) KCCR 2696), the
moving the appeal was liable to be CONGOl’l€'(‘E;_:’..ti\iEtl.C§’l__:'[l3§’._
learned District Judge failed to applgy. It:’was:’_cb’nte’nVde:d he
that, the learned Single Judge has fi_ga~i2e5détQ_1’c’dhsider_Ati:eé
patent illegality committed the regraiitingj:ae’u.thQVrViVt\.i3
that there is failure to conslder”-tihegmatteirlin accordance
with law by the learned«-.a’ppeél_latte and the learned
Single Judge and hencVei~–in.t_e:rferencehis for.
he ._Weha’ve’*peii=uese.d.the writ appeal record and
c0risi_dered”~the made by the learned counsel.
Th..e_°p0;i.nt for consid.e.ration is:
_ the facts and circumstances of the
it tiaex /earned Single Judge is justified in
rejectieng the writ petition?”
A. 4′ Ihdisputedly, Nagappa and Gurappa, the
“‘.pr7edecessors of the appellants executed the sale deed in
(3
favour of one Nagaraiaiah on 21.12.1965 conveying the
aforesaid property. Even if the property is regranted to
the appeliants, there being feeding of grant, the ratio of
decision in the case of Lakshman Gowda (supra) appiies
and wouid oniy enure to the benefit of
Nagarajaiah. Shankarappa, husband of
and father of respondent No.4.’,””h’ad«aV5’ri’.
agreement to purchase the said property frorn;i$1a.gar’ai’a’i~aVh’~_
on 22.06.1978. The reg’i*a.nt, order'”isi[AaVri.é’${n’ré~p),”
questioned by thei”a.ppeiiran’tsf;before the ‘fnppeiiate
Authority/District JudgeiVs.i.onejp’a:ssed”–o_n_’i2.07. 1984. The
appeai.__was– i.e., nearly with a deiay of
22 yearsgin theaffidai}’i’t,,fi’ied in support of condonation of
deiay’ ‘(A,nne$<uir.e_fF), was stated, that they came to know
ofthe order on 15.04.2006, applied for a certified
copyo'n."'*'_1,,5V8.i0V'5*."2006, obtained the same on 22.05.2006
and— fii.ed-the appeai and as such, from the date of
i.<nowie'dge, the appeal filed is in time and there is no
""n'egiigence or iatches on their part in fiiing the appeai.
"iv-Lfearned District Judge white considering the said
i
/.
application noticed that, the mutation was effected in the
name of grantee Shankarappa in the year 1984-_.8i..5_fi..ts’eEf,
which had remained in challenge. It was l.
the appeilants have not substantiate,d__thei_r”poss’ess’i’on,an.d ”
enjoyment of the property and their
in the RTC or in the revenue”—recoro’s.’ The’,:na.r’rn–ie,,,ot’ the,”
respondents apllear and
that the Sale deed in favour of
Nagarajappa being is a
constructive.n,,otir§e,’._»_ the evidence on
held that, sufficient
groundvywasAno’t’.m_a’de> condone the delay of 22 years
and consejlquenti-y the application filed under
Section ,5 of theytlmitation Act for condonation of defay.
appvéication for barred by limitation, the appeal
l”‘.=.3_lS?)__V.st’o4o’d,V_yreiiected with the dismissal of the application
seé’i<i ng._"co-ndonation of delay.
Learned Singie }udge though has held that,
l Section 5 of the Limitation Act is required to be considered
t
/’
r»
8
iiberaiiy, however noticing the facts and circumstances of
the case, having aiso regard the decision in the case of
SYED BHASHEER AHAMED & OTHERS VS. STATE OF
KARNATAK/-i (ILR1994 KAR 159), has heid that, the writ
petition is untenable in view of the inordinate_;cIe’i-aty-gin
approaching the Appeifate Authority/District
the matter is also devoid of merits;……
6. It is not in dispute that..,A:Nagappa_;
the predecessors of appe|iant’s,so»ld the’ pV_roipfe1rtyv;’inmfavoiir
of Nagarajaiah LJE’10fi’€’i’..” reg’i’ste:?:¢fl’Vg”i’-._sa|etvvtcleed dated
21.12:196SQ’:i;The:r§eaft’ea1:’the«p”ro’p”erty was mutated in the
namevxof”Nagaraj.a’i4ah’.v._:fi’r:a,e,.possession and enjoyment of
Nagar_a3’aia”h. “refiected”~~-‘ffrom the RTC is apparent.
Na’:g’:ara,itaiai_h eintter-ed” into an agreement of saie with
22.06.1978. Shani<arappa's narne
.aro_peareéci"Vii:n_t}he RTC in Column No.12(2). The ciaim of the
appei~!ari;ts that they are in possession of the property and
A igheiif. possession was sought to be disturbed on 15.04.1996
is not substantiated by production of any evidence before
i
/I
9)
the Appeilate Court. Though the regrant order was passed
on 12.07.1984, the appeai was filed oniy on 30.031.33.95
i.e., after a delay of about 22 years. The _
seeking condonation of delay has
considered by the Appellant Atutho-rity/ieahrnledit'{}is.trict.’
Judge with reference to thevfnateriallir,circumstah’::es off tlhegix
case. It is after ob}’ect’ive consVi_d’e_ratigon of alitheivffacts and
circumstances of the Hfiudge has
recorded the finding tihatihtherle i’io…’}Vu:VsitifViabEe ground to
accept g inordinate delay
of 22 competent authority
beingiia findinlgyg.9};»fact.,’fu__nies’s”perverse of illegal, is not
Eiable to be iinteirfered It was not shown before the
learnedsygsingieyyJudge’or before us as to how the finding
hy.y_the Avplpeliate Authority/learned District Judge
06.11.2006 with regard to limitation
su”if_ers__v’frorn any rnateriai error or iilegallty. Since the
.sappeai~..–:is hopelessly barred by time and there is no
“r.Ve><p.lianation of whatsoever nature to condone the
= .-.inordinate deiay of 22 years in seeking the reiief, the
k
/
a
appeal was rightly rejected by the learned District Judge
on the ground of unexpiained and inordinateW'de'Eay.
Learned Single Judge having examined the
found no ground to interfere. ijiaving
record, we do not find any groundgto
in the matter. Hence, the apoea} sta"r:.ds' reje:t'ed..V:,_… it
ri3/ –