IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6" DAY OF JANUARY, PRESENT _ 3 V THE HON'BLE MRSJUSTICE MANJuLA..C',£_i~E.LELj:RF.._ % T, L , THE MON'BLE MR. JUSTICE&A.NMEALLJAGfi3'PAL'A':.L3Q\,A@A>1Vt' VVRFFAPPEALhg;§65/2@O9(LR§3l,!. : 'L BETWEEN: 1' V V V. 'L Sunitha A Shetty @ L<;é r$r:ara,'L' fl _ » W/0. Late Anantharam S'h.,e"cty,__':'» Aged about 65 years, ' V R/a Alandkar Gzgdde, é , Near Devasth_'anéj,;»T' , , Talapadi \Ji'iiaqe',77-»., 'L '-- Mangaiote'Ta|uk_." " _ ' . A' . APPELLANT (By Sn. K.P'ra.sad.Heg'de," Adv.) Ti'. '-.A'ge':'M"ajoAi:=,'S/0. Late Seetharam Rai. 2. .°sarst2h a'."jV.Shetty, A Agje,_:Major, D/0. Late Seetharam Rai. fihankar Rai, Age: Major, S/o. Late Seetharam Rai, " .L:.'i R1 to R3 are ali R/a Yerémaru Bantwaia Mooda Viilage, Post Eodumarga, Bantwala Taiuk, Mangalore. 4. Additional Land Tribunal, Bantwala, Rep by its Secretary, Taluk Office, Bantwala. 5. State of Karnataka, Revenue Department Rep by its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore. (By Sri. K.Shashi Kiran Shetty,'Vi'i'i'=»."/ps. sshett-y.r&'Heg'de Associates for C/R1--R3.~;_. = Sri. T.i3.Srinivas, AGA .f_oi*-- R4-_ an-dVF'<'Ei__), This Writ VAppeai....iS_'--.fil'e.d ..yur'rdei'~~i.'set:tion 4 of the Karnataka i-EighfQCo_urt;_'Act 'p:ra.yi'nfq--.._to' set aside the order passed in i_the}1~' V'-Jyrit 3_P'etition l\lG'.'4242/2008 dated 03/12/2003;' ' iihis 'for preliminary hearing this day, A.N§/ENUG.Q'F'ALA"GQWDA, J, delivered the following: . JUDGMENT Sivnwtvilfdagamma was the yajamanthi of a certain Pai»!.ama}~aliJi'..~Family, governed by Aliya Santhana law of V'-».inheritance. Said Nagamma had two children vi2:., ,,,.4'_,fFhya".s'npanna Rai and Bhavani. Appellant is the daughter said Smt.Bhavani. The property held by Pallamajalu Family was partitioned on 9.1.1968. According to I appellant, 'A schedule property was allotted in favour of Sri Thyampanna Rai and herself. Appellant Thyampanna Rai is having only life interest.Vi_n':t=-he':;j:ro0.pert'y_ as per Aliya Santhana iaw of inhferltaince "a__nd the partition, she and her children iwge'r*e in po-"sse:ss'ionf a'nd"g enjoyment of the lands in que'stio"n. 2. One SeethararnA'Rai"}.t_féi~th.er"Vo'f:r:e'sbondents 1 to 3 filed Form E\lo.?A.,;l.._" fi_and Tribunal. Upon enqu:i_r--y;:v occupancy rights in favovgu_F...Ovf""t.h;eVfwsaidl Subsequently, occuD&iV1FlCv-- to Seetharama Raa' on 27.4.1981";1._ApVpella'n't'._f'ilegd' writ petition to quash the order dated0.4,197§"'pras__s_ed by the land tribunal Bantwal Taluk »(Ari.nex.ure:A:t*o__the writ petition), under which, the lands measuring 1.10 acres, Sy.l'\1o.74/6 1 meaisugring 0:20 cares, Sy.l\io.65/15 measuring 006 cents, ix""'V.:r».SyiNo.6§/3 measuring 0.33 acres and Sy.E\1o.67/3A rneasuring 0.44 acres situated at Bantwal Moodu grama, Bantwal Tatuk, Mangatore District were registered in the name of Seetharama Rai, father of respondents 2 and 3.
./
It was stated in the writ petition that, notice of tjh’e,.f’ci,a”‘éirn
made in Form No.7 was not given to V’
tribunal and she had no l<nowEedge._of V'
which took place before the land;"it.riEj's'_jn'al
application filed by said Sefet_h"arama" Rai and"'s'he~'learnt"f
about the order passed by th-e:"i'gancl~~.._tribunal-..o.n'iEy during
last week of November',"2'f307 "there is no delay
in approachingéthe Coiu"r't'V'f'oif Acicording to her, the
order passed"..by,..-t_bei.:_l–.a__nd_t-tibunai» is illegal being in
violation 0??"{i_.atlJ'FalVV3UStlC€ and Rule 17 of the
Karnataka Land ('Ruies' for short) and no
occupancy could have been granted in respect of the
' -ilan''d–sV'inquesgtion. H iiiii H
V".–..,'3x."'kikjesgpofyndents 2 and 3 flied statement of
'V obje4ct§o"ns,"wherein it was stated that, the said lands have
possession and enjoyment of their father late
— Seetharama Ra”: since from 1959, he was the tenant of the
“property for a long length of time, RTC records show the
name of their father as the tenant from 196869 to 1980~
81 and that the name of Thyampanna Rai is
owner in the revenue records and that
paying geni to said Thayamparina_yRai_,’ wh_o”oi’wner'”
of the property in question and that appe-‘iia’ii.ti has riVo:V’irig”iit;
title and interest over the”pi’o.perty’.i. if Th_ey.:V”‘h~ave.statedC
that, their father fiied Form which was
enquired into by the V’i”rii5ii_na_iy :.ac’c-ordyiance with iaw and
thereafter the order da.te’d» w_as.A”t>’assed conferring
occupancy .ri.g§hts§i’n_._i’a=vo«=iri-of Form No.10 was
have stated that, even RTC
record show tine.’iii_anoe*~._é:§fi.their father from 1981-82 to
1999y2000fluan_d that it-hevisaid Seetharama Rai expired on
“and thherevafter the name of their mother
entered in the RTC records from 2000-
01 2(_),{).<'4i:¥:Li:SiV.and she expired on 3.5.2004 and thereafter
harnes have been entered in the RTC and other
A reiv,eri–'iie records. They have also referred to various other
transactions. They contested the writ petition by raising
various objections inciuding the deiay and iaches.
\
{v
4. Learned Single Judge having heard
and after examining the records, has noticed
revenue records were not chainge-d, p_,ursLlant_ Vtojkthe
registered partition deed of
Thyarnpanna Rai, who is oth’er__ thiarrz t”h:e””so’n of”
original owner Smt.l\iva..g,arnm,a,— w’,i’.o’se,,..narrie”wasi found in
the Record of Rights respondent in
the proceedings,Dbeforeilltlheiland’r~Vtifii..bVuV’na:.l’and he being the
elder riotifiield of the proceedings
and rules of natural justice
have Learned Single Judge has also
noticed from re’cords”‘that, respondents 1 to 3 and their
“V”‘-i.,preid.ece’sso’irs havempaid taxes to the land in question and
,.,_th_a.t”tih:e’i;<:Vr'ia~g<.e:'_jproduced the records and hence, he could
notlfind..aln;,rferror with the order passed by the land
V'-».tribun'al.K Hence, has held that the writ petition is liable to
.,'b'e_,_di}smissed on merits apart from there being no reasons
__t_o condone the delay of 31 years in filing the writ petition.
The writ petition was dismissed not only on the ground of
delay and laches but also on merits. This appeal is
\e
/Z".
directed against the said order with a prayer to s,er: ,iarsiae
the order passed by the learned Single _
the writ petition and to grant the reliefs in ..
writ petition.
S. We have heard .,ViA~wie_,g’g’r.ép”!””‘iearned”V
counsel appearing for.§lDDel.ia*nt.iianld-».,Sri tK.”-Sh.aEshi Kiran
Shetty, learned j.:a’p-peering for
caveators/resVp.ond.ent:;§ iieia«r_ned1AuGA who appeared
for resp.o.n_d’E~ntS;”:’1*?§_.aHd: it ‘W.e….E:ilso perused writ appeal
record. r ‘
_ .6. i<i.F'ras'adt"':Hegde contended that, appellant
and Che"r= ct'*ii..i,drent'w'ere not made a party before the land
proceedings initiated by father of
res.pond-ants-AT1 to 3 i.e., Form No.7, in which, only
Thyarripanna Rai, who had only limited right over the
v.".,,prropt.erty was shown as respondent. Even said
_'V_f_i§hyarnpanna Rai was not served with the notice and
hence, has not contested the proceedings, As such, the
order passed by the land tribunal, copy of which is at
\'.,/,
.a~
Annexure–A, is in vioiation of Rule 17 of
Land Reforms Rules and opposed to princi_plv_Aes_o:fl.:"natul'r'al!..,Vl*
justice and even otherwise the said order
order. Learned counsel conVtendedi–h_at–,. the,V.!e.arne«d Sin'gie"g
Judge was not justified in dislrnissing petition and
hence, interference is cailed it by
7. Sri icshasiiiw counsel
appearing for’ other hand, by
taking us the ,st’1§;é:,rfieipi’~.§)f”objections filed to the
writ pe..titio’n,.co’n’te_nd.e’d”–th’at, the writ petition which is filed
after the”d_ei.-3y of “years is hopeiessly barred by delay
andiéiacihes. ‘Eve,n_____otheriiyise Thyampanna Rai, whoever
i accord.,in’g, ‘t«oV”th_e appeiiants a co–owner of the property was
H infi’i3.ieaVded.”,:asphalt party respondent before the iand tribunal.
Notice the proceedings was served on him. The claim
nra–d.e in Form No.7 by Seetharama Rai being weii founded
anldlisubstantiated by the record, was not contested. Even
uwotherwise, the Tribunal having held the enquiry into the
matter in accordance with law and havinifound that, the
/f-
properties in respect of which Form No.7
being tenanted properties and having vestedwiln .th.eV’i”§tat’e
on 1.3.1974, the appointed day,””occLJpa.nCy’:Ar’l:g.E§ts”-wete
granted in favour of the tenantA:’iS2eet_haran’f._a.A”Rai.it
person having enjoyed the ‘p._ro”pertyV; ‘has.d’eai’tTwE’th the’
same as an absolute owxner,w’iiii.c_h’ ‘is”r.g’vident”fro”n1 various
records produced along of objections.
Appellant was for a long
length of and though has been
residing 8 years, did not raise
any objerctiolns.:_.to:_jj»the.:g:_:”no’i’ding and enjoyment of the
property respiohrndéntsdl to 3. It was pointed out that
bl’«.,Th’§,-.a:mi9ani’ia Railfiasévnot questioned the order passed by
_thge’V’La_nd_!’Tribunal. Learned counsel referred to various
docyumen.tsl’i’..–produced along with statement of objections
and con__t3ended that, the learned Singie Judge was justified
“”V’.A’rn.,ciismissing the writ petition even on merits.
ls,
.-‘I
10
8. Sri T.P.Srinl\/as, learned AGA made sub’misg:s.i:o~ns
in support of findings and conclusion of the
granting occupancy rights in favou<r"0f–Seetharaina
9. In View of the submi_ssion’s_vhmade
counsel on both sides, the poi’nts_V”%f’orVconsideration. are:
(1) Whether pi.etl’itii..o_n_i’isp_hit by delay and
laches? I
(2) Wvh4€:t’li.e’r learned: S4ln’g’l’_e_ Judge was justified in
thewrit_«~petitio:nmeven on merits?
Re. F5oé’ntj_\io.
1’O.x The in the writ petition, passed
by 4?”. resp’on._de’n.t’-is’-dated 6.4.1977 (Anne><ure–A). The
v_writ..ije5t'itio'n._was iilediyin the year 2008 i.e., nearly after 31
-yllegarscr of the said order. Although no period of
lim-it_atéori~ prescribed for filing of a writ petition under
l3″»-‘~___V’-».Articles.V__A226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, any
aggrieved has to approach the writ Court for relief
.v”‘”v..’._\l_\!%itl’1il1 a reasonable time. Whether relief should be
granted to a petitioner under writ jurisdiction where the
cause of action has arisen in the remote past is a matter of
t
12
passed by the Land Tribunal for which copy applicatii-onwas
filed, certified copy was obtained and the ‘
filed. The said averments are no;t»~»ba_cked ‘any of it
evidence and have merely rema’i’ned’_’_’a’s av~e_rinera_ts’».l_lf«Wle.
specifically asked Sri K.Pras_ad..V_ Hedde, Vi_ea~rne.d'””counsel”VV
appearing for appeflant to plo.i.n:t”Lv-0utLA.an.y”materiial which
shows that the the property
till the date of 4f_ilin__Q ofthe’ from the date
of passing:__ by the Land
‘ Tribunail.”VlvLea»rned.v::counjyseiv was tinabie to point out or show
any materialy. hand, respondents 1 to 3 have
placed, reco’r’dS:Vtos.shoTw their possession and enjoyment of
‘TV'”V.thel’i–pro»-perty, payrnenit of revenue etc., The entries in the
°z_r’ei;oVrd produced by respondents, have got
pres_iim_pt.ive’..–Avaiue iinder S.133 of the Karnataka Land
3″-‘~.__”-».Reven.’uet’Act. Appellant has not produced any evidence to
V”‘V’.diis.pi:é;ce the presumption. The inordinate delay in
__approaching the writ Court for reiief has not been
satisfactoriiy explained. Except making baid statement in
the writ petition, noticed supra, appellant has not produced
\Q/.
13
any materiai whatsoever to ignore the deiay of
years in filing the writ petition. Delay aridflach,e:s:..’b’ein”gA
relevant factors for exercise of writ .j.i;risdictvi’4o’n-Qappeiiant V
has not made out any case to eiryerirflise the tii.sycret!ion_a’r-y
jurisdiction. The writ petitionf.i§vei.ng hit’ by ~d_eia.y~~la’jches,* V
learned Singie Judge was justi.fi.e’d_ in.._hoidi”ng..,th,a’§t there is
no reason to ignore dellay rm filing the writ
petition. We dohot firi’d”any; njhat:ergial’-onreczord, which has
not been b-,r;_t_he-i..iea’rriie’d Single Judge, to take a
differeht vifewfivn the-‘in4a’tter. .
Re.l3’o_4i rit
The a~vevr_rnents made in the writ petition itself
»snows..vthat,:T’hyarnpanna Rai was issued with a notice of
Rthe–glaVi’rri”.f’o._roteupancy rights, but he did not participate in
.q the.4″pro’t:eed”iVngs. it has been specificaily stated in the writ
V’ ” peiri.t.ion”‘as foliows:
“Sri Thyarripanna Rai who has got very limited right
over the iands in dispute did not appear Land
Tribunal nor contested the claim of the father of the
respondent No.1 — 3.” E
/.1
14
Appeiiant has conceded that, Thyampanna Rai
over the property and has not contested
It is not a case wherein the perso_,n….s,hown’as owner oft”
the property in the revenue reco’r.ds;’_wa’s n’0.t”n_otEfie’d–~_an.d
the Tribunai has proceeded’to”‘e,nquir’e into thvei’-rna»tte~r and’-i’
pass the order. Even now a_i_so,~,_Thyampanna Riaé who is
none other than the wise re!ati.ve”–Vdf.,>«appeiiant, has not
joined the appei-iant, to”q-uiesvtioyn.Qiinhtheirnpugned order.
Indisputediyl-.,Th:ya–:Trpa’n_n1a_.R_aiiji.s’ co–owner of the
propertyiiiiivni a:n’d_’is_a!so’ an elder member of the
farniiy.’7Th*e record’ for the reievant period were
standing Enauthe nar’ne”‘ofAthe said person. Indisputediy, the
‘ “‘v.,ent’riesifi;=n’the reyieiinue records were not changed on
registered partition deed. Hence, the
app,i’icant~’i§ie.ioVre the Land Tribunai was justified in making
V’–Sri Th’aiy_ampanna Rai as the respondent iandiord, to whom
,,,,”_,tht.-‘, :Tribunai issued the notice, conducted the enquiry in
__t__he manner provided under the Karnataka Land Reforms
Ruies and thereafter has passed the order. The entries in
the revenue records show that the property was tenanted
:\ ‘.
/2
15
prior to 1.3.1974 and has thus vested in _»_:dn
account of 8.44 of the Karnataka Land
vested land has been re-granted undejgt ‘df”the’Hs.aid
Act. In the said view of the _r4_nattei1._”l’earneVd”V’Singéie
was justified in dismissing writ”p.etit’it)n,f§even on
merits.
For the 4fc’i’egoig1’§jVivreasojnis}-.Vtt.e ‘vzaijpeal lacks merit
and hence,s’tan__d’:d.E.srn’issed;.._
Sd/-~
‘fudge
…..
fudge