Writ Petition No. 5125 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11969 WP No. 5125 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 5125 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VEERESH S/O LATE RUDRAPPA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 2. MISS. MEGHA D/O LATE RUDRAPPA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
Legal Reasoning
3. SMT. S. BASAMMA W/O LATE RUDRAPPA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O HALIVANA VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577530. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND TRIBUNAL, DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE- 577 213. 2. THE TAHASILDAR CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213. 3. SRI. BASAVANNA DEVARU AN UNREGISTERED TEMPLE, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11969 WP No. 5125 of 2025 SITUATED AT SAGARAPETE VILLAGE, HAROSAGARA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213. REPRESENTED BY ITS ARCHAK SRI. VEERESH (BY SRI. V.SHIVAREDDY., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. GIRISH.RJ., ADVOCATE FOR R-3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.11.2005 IN NO. LRF (7A) 94, 95, 362, 363/98-99 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-H HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. On 08.11.2005, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the application filed by Rudrappa Poojari, father of petitioners 1 & 2 and husband of petitioner No.3 in Form-7A on two grounds, firstly on the ground that Rudrappa Poojari had not produced any document to indicate that he was the tenant as on 01.03.1974 and secondly, on the ground that since he had made an application in Form-7 beyond the period - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11969 WP No. 5125 of 2025 prescribed and the same had already been rejected, he could not make an application in Form-7A. 2. This order passed on 08.11.2005 was not challenged by Rudrappa Poojari during his life time. It is admitted that Rudrappa Poojari passed away in the year 2007. 3. However, the appeal came to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal only in the year 2021 i.e., after 16 years by the petitioners herein. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal, both on the ground of delay and also on merits holding that Rudrappa Poojari could not claim occupancy rights. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Sri Virupakshaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the earlier rejection of Form-7 would be of no consequence since the application has been filed beyond the prescribed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11969 WP No. 5125 of 2025 period and in law, it was as if no application had been filed at all. Secondly, he submits that there are abundant records to indicate that the grandfather of the petitioners was himself in possession since 1969 and therefore, the observation of the Assistant Commissioner that there were no documents, cannot be accepted. 6. It is to be noticed here that Rudrappa Poojari's claim for conferment of occupancy rights for grant of land under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was rejected on 08.11.2005 and during his life time i.e., till 2007, he chose to accept the order and did not prefer any appeal. The petitioners who are the legal representatives of Rudrappa Poojari have filed an appeal in the year 2021 i.e., nearly 15 years after he passed away. 7. In my view, having regard to the long passage of time and the fact that there was an inordinate delay in preferring an appeal, the Tribunal was justified in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11969 WP No. 5125 of 2025 rejecting the appeal on the ground that there was inordinate delay. It was also noticed by the Tribunal that Rudrappa Poojari himself made a statement that he had no relation to Form-7A that had been filed and that Form-7A filed by him can be rejected. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate places on record the letter addressed by Rudrappa Poojari which is found in the original records which reads as follows: ""ZÀ£ÀßVj vÁ®ÆPÀÄ §¸ÀªÁ¥ÀlÖt 1£Éà ºÉÆç½ gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀ gÀÆ§Æ gÀÆ§Æ ¸À¢æ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¸À¢æ ºÉÆç½ ºÀgÉøÁUÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ²æà ¦.gÀÄzÁæ¥Àà ©£ï ZÀjzÀ¥Àà DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉý §gɹzÀ ºÉýPÉ K£ÉAzÀgÉ- £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ²æà ªÀÄ»ªÀiÁ ¥ÀmÉî gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè zÁªÀtUÉgÉ gÀªÀgÀ°è ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀDzÀgÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÀæ.£ÀA.¨sÀƸÀÄ.7J-«ªÀ 94- 95, 363, 363/98-99 ¢£ÁAPÀ 14.3.2000£Éà zÀAvÉ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ §AzÀ ¸ÀAUÀw w½¬ÄvÀÄ. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11969 WP No. 5125 of 2025 £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè zÁªÀtUÉgÉgÀªÀgÀ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄ»ªÀiÁ ¥ÀmÉîjAzÀ PÉÆÃjPÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. C®èzÉ ¸À¢æ ºÀgÉøÁUÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ jÃ.¸À.£ÀA.24/2gÀ 0-12 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 66/2gÀ 2-35 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆj PÉÆÃj PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 77J gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA.7J gÀ°è Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À¢æ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÉà £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¥sÉÆÃdðj ªÀiÁr ¸À°è¹gÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸À¢æ ¸À.£ÀA.G3 Cfð ºÉý §gɹzÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄÄ F ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀ N¢¹ PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ gÀÄdÄ ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛãÉ" (underlining by me) 9. As could be seen from the above, Rudrappa Poojari had himself categorically stated that application had been filed by someone by forging his signature and he has clearly stated that the said application may be rejected and he was not interested in claiming occupancy rights. 10. In my view, having regard to the fact that Rudrappa Poojari had given a statement that Form-7A may be rejected and he had also accepted the order of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11969 WP No. 5125 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner passed way back in the year 2005, there is absolutely no right for the petitioners, who are the legal representatives, to prefer an appeal and the Tribunal was therefore justified in dismissing the appeal. I find no reason to appeal. The petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21