Res judicata bars re-litigation of settled ownership claims; significant delays in legal challenges can lead to dismissal of writ petitions.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the State of Karnataka, through its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department raising a challenging to the order dated 27.12.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk in case No.LRF.5063/79-80.

2. By order dated 08.10.2021, respondent No.8, Residents Welfare Association Federation was permitted to be brought on record as party-respondent to the proceedings, to support the petitioner-State and its authorities.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Kiran V.Ron, appearing for the petitioner-State and its authorities submitted that old Sy.No.15 of Pattandur Agrahara village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is a tank bed. Although subsequently, it is assigned new Sy.No.54, nevertheless, the revenue records clearly show that the land in question is a tank bed and therefore, the Land Tribunal could not have re-granted the lands to Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa (respondent No.1, since dead, is represented by his legal representatives). However, since question of delay is raised by the contesting respondents, learned AAG submitted that in the memorandum of writ petition details of the events, chronologically have been given. Sri.H.P.Munivenkatappa filed O.S.No.394/1993 before the II Additional Munsiff, Bangalore seeking declaration against the State of Karnataka and the revenue authorities that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property based on the orders of the Land Tribunal and the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interference. The suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff, therefore Regular Appeal was filed by the State and its authorities in R.A.No.38/2004 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and the same was dismissed on 17.12.2008. Being aggrieved, the State and its authorities preferred a Second Appeal in RSA No.2166/2006.

4. In the meanwhile, Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa had approached the revenue authorities to have his name entered in the RTC and on failure to enter his name in the RTC, contempt proceedings were initiated against the Special Tahasildar. Arrest warrant was also issued against the Special Tahasildar and the then Special Tahasildar Sri.Boraiah had filed W.P.No.4335/2006 challenging the arrest warrant. Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa also filed W.P.No.39159/2002 challenging the action of the revenue authorities declining to enter his name in the revenue records. A Civil Revision Petition was filed by the State of Karnataka and the revenue authorities in CRP.No.62/2005 being aggrieved of the rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing the regular appeal. A Division Bench of this court considered all these matters, including W.P.No.12895/2005 filed by the State and its authorities seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.394/1993, as well as the orders passed by the Land Tribunal on 27.12.1980.

5. Learned AAG submits that the Division Bench of this court allowed RSA No.2166/2006 while condoning the delay 9 years 7 months in preferring the appeal before the first appellate court and restored R.A.No.38/2004 and remanded the matter back to the lower appellate court to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. On remand, R.A.No.38/2004 was once again dismissed by the lower appellate court by order dated 17.12