SOMLA NAYAK v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE- D THE ORDER DATED 22/04/2017 PASSED BY THE R2 IN PTCL/CR/7/11-12 AND ANNEXURE-E THE ORDER DATED 23/11/2021 PASSED BY THE R1 IN PROCEEDINGS NO PTCL/CR/17/2017-18 AND ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 IN PTCL/CR/7/11-12 AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22/04/2017 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure D and order dated - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9815 WP No. 12835 of 2023 23/11/2021 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure E.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that sons of original grantee sold an extent of land bearing Sy.No.13/B of Kodathal village of Honnali Taluk in favour of one Gundappa S/o Ningappa. The above said purchaser sold the said land in favor of one Ramappa S/o Rudrappa. The petitioner filed an application for resumption of land before 2nd respondent. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 24/07/2013 allowed the petition holding that all the sale transactions are null and void and forfeited the land and subsequently, re-granted to the petitioner. The purchasers aggrieved by order passed by respondent No.2 preferred appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal vide order dated 02/12/2014 and remitted the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9815 WP No. 12835 of 2023 matter to respondent No.2 to reconsider afresh and pass appropriate order. Respondent No.2 after remand, dismissed the petition vide order dated 22/04/2017. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 23/11/2021 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the sale transaction, all the revenue records are changed in the name of purchasers. He submits that the sale transaction is in violation of provisions of PTCL Act. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have committed an error in - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9815 WP No. 12835 of 2023 passing the impugned orders. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 & 2. She also submits that the order was passed by respondent No.1 on 23/11/2021 and the petitioner filed the writ petition on 16/06/2023. She submits that the petitioner has not shown the sufficient cause in filing the writ petition at a belated stage. She submits that on the ground of delay and latches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, she prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused records and considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The land in question was granted in favour of one Heeriya Nayak on 01/06/1942. The sons of original grantee sold the portion of land under registered sale deed dated 31/01/1964 to extent of 02.31 ½ acres of said land - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9815 WP No. 12835 of 2023 in favour of Gundappa. The said Gundappa sold the said land in favor of one Ramappa S/o Rudrappa. The petitioner filed a petition for resumption of land and to declare the register sale deed as null and void in the year

2011. Respondent No.2 allowed the petition and the said order was assailed before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal. The orders were challenged in the writ petition. This court vide order dated 02/12/2014, allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 & 2 and remitted the matter to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 dismissed the petition vide order dated 22/04/2017. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23/11/2021. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 16/06/2023. Thus, there is a delay of more than 2 years in filing the writ petition. The petitioner has not shown the cause for filing the present writ petition at a belated stage. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9815 WP No. 12835 of 2023

8. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an instance of exercise of jurisdiction in equity and therefore, before considering the writ petition on merits, the doctrine of delay and latches would have to be adverted to while exercising powers under equity jurisdiction. The said view is supported by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. N. JAYAMMA & ORS., VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS., in W.P.Nos.17906-17907/2016, disposed of on

05.02.2018. The said view is reiterated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in HASNATH B. & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS., in W.P.No.41508- 41512/2017, disposed of on 01.02.2018.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. T.T. MURALI BABU reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, at paragraph No.17 has held as under: "In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9815 WP No. 12835 of 2023 same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold." (Emphasis supplied) - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9815 WP No. 12835 of 2023

10. Thus, there is a delay of more than 2 years in filing the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

11. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE SSB