High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 04 KAR CK 0072

DEENA DAYA CHARITIES TRUST (R) vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 18 April 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
3972 of 2016 (KLR)

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

38 paragraphs · 303 words
1.

This appeal is barred by time having been presented

after 448 days. An application seeking condonation of

delay is also filed.

2.

The appellant challenged the allotment of a piece

of Gomal land measuring 16 acres 16 guntas in favour of

the fourth respondent in the year 2003 by filing W.P.

No.3788 of 2015.

3.

The Hon''ble Single Judge, vide order dated June

24, 2015, dismissed the said writ petition on the premise

that the petition was in the nature of public interest

litigation. The appellant did not challenge the said order

initially. However, he filed a separate writ petition as a PIL,

being W.P.No.43169 of 2015. A Division Bench of this

court, vide order dated September 19, 2016, dismissed the

said writ petition on the ground of delay, as the allotment

was of the year 2003, and there was no good ground made

out to condone the inordinate delay.

4.

After the dismissal of the said writ petition, the

appellant has now challenged the order passed by the

Hon''ble Single Judge dated June 24, 2015 in W.P.No.3788

of 2015.

5.

Admittedly, the land was allotted to the fourth

respondent in the year 2003. A Division Bench of this

court has already considered and dismissed the public

interest litigation on the ground of delay and the same has

attained finality.

6.

We have heard Mr.H.Subramanya Jois, learned

senior advocate, appearing for Mr.B.K.Soodi, learned

advocate for the appellant.

7.

We do not see any ground to condone the delay.

Therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay is

dismissed.

8.

Consequently, the appeal, also, stands dismissed.

9.

We make no order as to costs.

10.

However, the dismissal of this appeal shall not

come in the way of the appellant to make a separate

application to the Government seeking allotment of any

alternate land.