Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 26 (KAR)

VENKATAMMA v. PRAKASH K. SRIVASTAVA

2015-01-05

K.L.MANJUNATH, S.SUJATHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Sr.counsel for the appellant and Sri Udaya Holla, Sr. Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. These appeals are preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.6.06 passed in W.P.No.27546/2005 and also rejection of the review petition by the learned Single Judge on 4.8.10 in RP No.122/09. 3. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:- The appellant is a widow of one K. Ramaiah. Sy.No.49 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas situated in Hebbalu village was service inam land and the same was regranted under the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act,1961 in favour of 12 persons by order dated 6.6.1973 subject to condition that the land shall not be alienated except for partition among the members of the grantees. The appellant’s father-in-law by name Kapniappa was one of the grantees. It is the case of the appellant that without obtaining prior permission for alienation, the sale deed came to be executed in favour of J.B. Vasudev and K.M Balachandran. Subsequently, they sold the land in favour of one Sanjay K. Srivastava under the sale deed dated 17.12.1980. On coming to know of the violation of conditions imposed under the regrant order, the application came to be filed before the Tahsildar for cancellation of the sale deed contending that sale is contrary to order of regrant and that the land has been vested with the State Government and they are entitled for re-grant. The application filed for cancellation of the sale was allowed. Challenging the same, the purchasers filed writ petitions in W.P.No.27546/2005. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition by his order dated 27.6.06. In the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant’s son by name Srinivas was arrayed as 10th respondent as one of L.Rs of Kapinappa. Aggrieved by the allowing of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, the grantees filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench in W.A. No.1222/06 in which the appellant’s son Srinivas was appellant No.7. The writ appeal came to be dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.7.07. Aggrieved by the allowing of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, the grantees filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench in W.A. No.1222/06 in which the appellant’s son Srinivas was appellant No.7. The writ appeal came to be dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.7.07. Being not satisfied with the dismissal of the writ appeal, the unsuccessful appellants including the appellant’s son, carried the matter to the Supreme Court in SLP No.22297/07 which petition also came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3.12.07. 4. After dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellants herein suppressing the fact of her son challenging the order, a review petition was filed before the learned Single Judge in R.P.No.122/09. The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter dismissed the review petition on merits and also on the ground of delay and laches by his order dated 4.8.2010. Therefore, the present writ appeals are preferred by the appellants. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the appellant’s son Srinivas was respondent in W.P.no.27546/05. It is also not in dispute that the appellant’s son had also preferred writ appeal before the Division Bench which appeal also came to be dismissed and confirmed in SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Having lost the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant son thought of filing a review petition before the learned Single Judge and the same was dismissed. Now in the instant appeal, it is not case of the appellant that there is a conflict of interest between her and her son Srinivas. It is not her case that a fraud has been played on her son. We therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in these writ appeals since the grounds taken by the appellants in these appeals have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. In the circumstance, the these writ appeals are dismissed without condoning the delay of 1589 days.