Somanna vs The State of Karnataka

The petitioners have called into question the second respondent - Land Tribunal''s order, dated 19.12.1981 (Annexure-A) granting the occupancy rights. Sri. H. Subramanya Jois, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. K.C. Shanthakumar for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. The impugned order is non-est in law and has no legal efficacy. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1965, the Land Tribunal is not clothed with the power to grant the occupancy rights.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the void order remains void, even if no challenge is raised to the same. He submits that the technicalities should not come in the way of doing substantial justice to the parties. Mere passage of time could not have the effect of validating the void order, so submits the learned Senior Counsel. He states that the petitioners are all the devotees of the deities in question and that it is a part of their pious obligation to protect the temple properties.

Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 7, 9 to 17, 25, 26, 28 to 34 and 36 to 43 submits that on the same cause of action, five persons had earlier filed W.P. Nos. 47869-47877/2011. On learned Single Judge raising the issue of maintainability of the said petitions, the said five persons withdrew the writ petitions. Immediately thereafter these petitions are filed.

For advancing the submission that these petitions are liable to be rejected on the short ground of delay and laches, he relies on the following authorities:

(1) B.P. Girish v. State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department reported in ILR 2009 Kar.708 : (2009 (3) AIR Kar R 232).

(2) Anil M. Puthran and others v. The Land Tribunal and another reported in ILR 2005 Kar.3048.

(3) An unreported decision of this Court in W.P. No. 17158/2008 disposed of on 09.10.2012 in the case of S. Nagaraja and others v. State of Karnataka and others.

Sri. R. Devadas, learned Principal Government Advocate, submits that public interest litigations are liable to be summarily dismissed in absence of proper explanation for the delay. In support of his submissions he relies on the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of D.D.A. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Others, .

The submissions of the learned counsel have received our thoughtful consideration.

The challenge to the impugned order is raised after 31 years of its passing. No satisfactory or cogent explanation is forthcoming for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. The third party interests have also come in. We are therefore not persuaded to examine these petitions on merits. These petitions are rejected on the short ground of delay and laches without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. No order as to costs.