- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB WA No. 1347 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1347 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MOURICE GONSALVES S/O. BENDIT GONSALAVENCE AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT BANNUR VILLAGE AND POST BANNUR, PUTTUR TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574 203. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT-575 001. 2. MAI DE DEUS CHURCH PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT-574 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.) Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB WA No. 1347 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 28.06.2024 IN WRIT PETITION No.13598/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN WRIT PETITION NO.13598/2021 AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2024 passed in writ petition No.13598 of 2021, the petitioner therein has preferred this writ appeal. 2. The case of the appellant is that the lands which are the subject matter of the writ appeal are Kumki lands to the Khadim warga lands which belong to the appellant and that the appellant is in unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the same from a very - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB WA No. 1347 of 2024 long time and he is also utilizing the lands for better exploitation of his Khadim warga lands. Hence, he has made an application for regularization of unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the lands concerned in the year 1991 itself. However, the State, in consideration of the lands acquired from respondent No.2, allotted the lands which are the subject matter of the writ appeal in favour of respondent No.2 in the year 1994. The appellant came to know of the said allotment only in the year 2015 when the respondent No.2 tried to dig a borewell in the lands concerned and he immediately, filed an Appeal No.635 of 2015 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. The same was challenged in writ petition No.13598 of 2021, which also came to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 3. It is submitted that though the lands were allotted to the respondent No.2 in the year 1994 itself, the appellant came to know of it only in the year 2015 and immediately, he has approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, disregarding this fact, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the appeal and the same has been again - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB WA No. 1347 of 2024 erroneously upheld by learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that the appellant has been in unauthorised occupation and cultivation of lands concerned from a very long time and that the State could not have allotted the lands in favour of respondent No.2 without considering the application made by the appellant in the year 1991 itself, for regularization of his unauthorised occupation and cultivation. On the said ground, it is prayed that the order passed in writ petition No.13598 of 2021 be set aside and allow the writ appeal as prayed for. 4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, justify the orders passed by both the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge. Attention of the Court is drawn to the RTC produced by the appellant himself which shows the mutation entry being changed in the year 1995-96 itself in the name of respondent No.2. On the said ground, it is submitted that the appellant was aware of the said transaction and that, respondent No.2 infact is in possession of the properties concerned and it is submitted that the claim of the appellant is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB WA No. 1347 of 2024 rightly rejected by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge. 5. The appellant when asked about the mutation entry recording the fact that the lands have been sanctioned in favour of respondent No.2 in the year 1995-96 itself, he was not in a position to dispute the same. 6. The fact that the mutation entry pertaining to the lands concerned recorded the grant of lands in favour of respondent No.2 in the year 1995-96 itself and the same being reflected in the RTC since then makes the submission of the appellant that he was not aware of the lands being granted in favour of respondent No.2 unbelievable. Admittedly, the lands have been granted in favour of respondent No.2 in the year 1994 itself. Thereafter, revenue documents have been changed in the name of respondent No.2 in the year 1995-96. The appellant has challenged the said grant for the first time in the year 2015. There is an inordinate delay of more than 20 years which has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. Under the circumstances, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or by learned Single Judge. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4040-DB WA No. 1347 of 2024 7. As the appeal is without any merits, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14