Writ Petition No. 2149 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6622 WP No. 2149 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9828 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2149 OF 2022 (KVOA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 9828 OF 2022 IN WP No. 2149/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M. KALAVATHI, D/O SRI.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT AMBEDKAR COLONY, DODDATHOGURU, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100. 2. SRI. RAMAIAH.M., D/O SRI.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
Legal Reasoning
3. SRI. RAJAPPA, S/O LATE ALLALAMMA & LATE ANNAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE, BENGALURU - 562 107. 4. P. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SMT. JAYAMMA, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6622 WP No. 2149 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9828 of 2022 5. SANTHOSH KUMAR. P, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SMT. JAYAMMA, 6. SANDEEP.P., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O SMT. JAYAMMA, 4 TO 6 ARE R/AT AMBEDKAR COLONY, ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 100. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY V. K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 106. 3. SMT. SHARADAMMA, D/O LATE SRI. GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 936, MUTTON STREET, BAJANTHRI BEEDI, BASANNA BEEDI, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2 SRI.AJAY R. ANEPPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6622 WP No. 2149 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9828 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE OR QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD.4.1.2021 IN MA NO.5006/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DSITRICT SITTING AT ANEKAL AT ANENXURE-E. IN WP NO. 9828/2022 BETWEEN: SMT. ALLALAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O PILLAPPA, D/O LATE ANNAYAPPA AND LATE ALLALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR COLONY, ATTIBELE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 107. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6622 WP No. 2149 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9828 of 2022 PIN:-562 106. 3. SMT. SHARADAMMA, D/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING NO.936, MUTTON STREET, BAJANTHRI BEEDI, BASANNA BEEDI, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, PIN:-562 106. 4. SRI.RAMAIAH, S/O LATE ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 5. SRI.YELLAPPA, S/O THAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 6. SRI.MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE MADDURAPPA (WRONGLY MENTIONED THE FATHER NAME OF RESPONDENT NO.6 AS MADGIRIYAPPA IN THE IMPUGED JUDGEMENT) AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 7. SMT.MOTAMMA, D/O LATE MADANGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 8. SRI.NAGARAJU, S/O LATE MADANGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 9. SRI.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, S/O LATE MADANGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6622 WP No. 2149 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9828 of 2022 ARE RESIDING AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN:-562 107. 10. SRI.RAJAPPA, S/O LATE ALLALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 11. SMT.GOWRAMMA, D/O LATE ALLALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.10 & 11 ARE RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR COLONY, DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU - 560 100. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2. SRI.AJAY R.ANEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3. SRI.T.C.SATHISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5,R-8 AND R-9. R-4, R-6, 6-7, R-10 AND R-11 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED. V/O DTD:23/01/2025-NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-7, R-10 AND R-11 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.04.01.2021 PASSED IN MA NO.5006/2015ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE R-2 BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6622 WP No. 2149 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9828 of 2022 ORAL ORDER These petitions are filed assailing the order dated 04.01.2021, in M.A.No.5006/2015, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal. In terms of the said order, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order passed by 2nd respondent/Tahasildar, in VOA CR.36/2010-11 is set- aside. The matter is remitted to the Tahasildar for fresh consideration. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Village Officer Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961' for short), provides 90 days time to file an appeal before the District Judge, in case any person is aggrieved by the order under the Act of 1961. It is said that the appeal is filed after three years from the date of the order and the appellants before the learned District Judge filed an application for condonation of delay. The petitioners contend that they orally objected - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6622 WP No. 2149 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9828 of 2022 to the said application for condonation of delay and the learned District Judge passed the order without reference to the application for condonation of delay and as such, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set- aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further contends that the appellant/3rd respondent herein has no locus standi to file an appeal. In case, the delay is condoned, the learned District Judge was required to consider the contention relating to the locus of the appellant to file the appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting 3rd respondent would contend that the objection is not filed to the said application for condonation of delay and the appeal was heard on merit and since the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the office of the Tahasildar for fresh consideration. It should be deemed that the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6622 WP No. 2149 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9828 of 2022 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 6. The fact that there was a delay in filing the appeal is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that an application is filed to condone the delay. It is also noticed that Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1961, provides that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does apply to the proceeding before the learned District Judge. In that event, the person who has filed an appeal beyond the stipulated period of 90 days is enabled under law to move an application for condonation of delay. However, whether the delay has been properly explained or not, whether the grounds made out for condonation of delay or not, have to be considered by the concerned Court. Such an exercises is not undertaken by the learned District Judge. Without reference to the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is decided on merit. 7. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is to be set-aside and the matter has to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6622 WP No. 2149 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9828 of 2022 be remitted to the learned District Judge to pass order on the application for condonation of delay. If the learned District Judge finds that valid, sufficient reasons are shown for condoning the delay, then the delay has to be condoned and the appeal has to be heard on merit. If the learned District Judge finds that the delay is not properly explained, then the application has to be dismissed. 8. Hence, the following:
Decision
ORDER i) Writ Petitions are allowed. ii) The Impugned order dated 04.01.2021, in M.A.No.5006/2015, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal is hereby set-aside. iii) The matter is remitted to the District Court to pass an appropriate order as indicated above. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6622 WP No. 2149 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9828 of 2022 iv) Parties shall appear before the learned District Judge on 17.03.2025 without any notice from the Court. v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the appeal as well as the merits of the Interlocutory application for condonation of delay. vi) Registry to return the Trial Court Records to the District Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33