THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY vs SHARDA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200071 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200187 OF 2025
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200208 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
IN WA No. 200071/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
YADGIRI-585202.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHARADA W/O KHANDOBA SAGAR,
AGED ABOUT 65YRS,
R/O NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
STATION AREA,
YADGIRI-585202.
2. SMT. D SUREKHA PATWARI
W/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 62YRS,
R/O NO. 5-2-26, STATION ROAD,
YADGIRI-585202.
3. SRI B. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O Y. BHEEMAVVA YADGIRI,
AGED ABOUT 42YRS,
R/O T-139, II CROSS, S.P EXTENSION
MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003.
SMT. RANGAMMA W/O LATE ERANNA
DIED BY LRS.
4. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O SMT. RANGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 56YRS,
R/O GR-39/7 GR COLONY, HUTTI CAMP,
HUTTI, TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 115.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU- 560001.
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SECRETARY TO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU- 560001.
7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD DEPARTMENT,
YADGIRI- 585202.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R5 TO R7)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, A) TO ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WP
NO.201702/2021 DATED 24-04-2024. B) TO PASS ANY OTHER
ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM
FIT.
IN WA NO. 200187/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOUSING DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SECRETARY TO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD DEPARTMENT, YADGIRI-585202.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA)
AND:
1. SMT. SHARDA W/O KHANDOBA SAGAR,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, STATION AREA,
YADGIRI-585202
2. SMT. D. SUREKHA PATWARI
W/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O NO.5-2-26, STATION ROAD,
YADGIRI-585202.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
3. SRI B. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O Y. BHEEMAVVA YADGIRI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O T-139, II CROSS, S.P. EXTENSION,
MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003.
SMT. RANGAMMA W/O LATE ERANNA,
DEAD BY LRS,
4. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O SMT. RANGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O GR-39/7 GR COLONY,
HUTTI CAMP, HUTTI, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584115.
5. THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
YADGIRI-585202.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, (A) ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL;
(B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE DATED 24.04.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.
201702/2021 (GM-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS
THE WRIT PETITION.
AND
(C) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
IN WA NO. 200208/2026
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHARDA W/O KHANDOBA SAGAR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O. NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
STATION AREA, YADGIRI-585 202.
2. SMT. D. SUREKHA PATWARI
W/O ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O. NO.5-2-26, STATION ROAD,
YADGIRI-585 202.
3. SRI B. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. Y.B. YADGIRI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O. T-139, II CROSS, S. P. EXTENSION,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
4.
SRI BASAVARAJ S/O SMT. RANGAMMA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
VIJAYALAXMI W/O BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O. GR-39/7 GR COLONY, HUTTI CAMP, HUTTI,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584126.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOUSING DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SECRETARY TO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
YADGIRI-585 202.
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD DEPARTMENT, YADGIRI-585 202.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE / MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2024 IN WP
NO.201702/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE, IN SO FAR AS NOT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.02.2019 BEARING NO.
RD
PASSED BY THE 3
PÀUÀȪÀÄA/G¥ÀæªÀå(UÁæ¸ÉÃ)ºÀAaPÉ/2018-19
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M, M1 TO M3 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
These writ appeals are arising out of order dated
24.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP
No.201702/2021, wherein the petitioners in the aforesaid
writ petition filed the writ of certiorari challenging the
endorsement dated 06.02.2019 issued by respondent No.3
therein vide Annexures-M to M3 and also sought a
mandamus directing the respondent-Authority therein to
take necessary steps to transfer four LIG houses bearing
Nos.16 to 19 at Housing Colony, Yadgiri in favour of
respondent No.3 therein i.e., the Commissioner, Karnataka
Housing Board, Bengaluru, by considering the
representations of the petitioners therein vide Annexures-M
to M3.
2. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties, disposed of the writ petition. While
disposing of the said petition, the learned Single Judge has
recorded his finding in paragraph Nos.10 to 15 as follows:
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
”10. On such perusal of the materials on record, it is
crystal clear that in WP Nos.103618-103621/2013 a
categorical submission is made on behalf of the
respondents, who are the respondents in this writ petition
as well, that the four houses have been handed over from
the Public Works Department to the Housing Board. When
such a statement has been recorded by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, the endorsements issued by the
Housing Board that the houses are yet to be handed over by
the Public Works Department to the Housing Board is per se
incorrect and cannot be countenanced in law.
11. At any rate, since the houses were occupied by
the Public Works Department without there being any
allotment proceedings after the same were constructed by
the Housing Board, the very occupation of the Group ‘D’
Employees of the Public Works Department in those houses
is held to be illegal.
12. The Housing Board is now governed by the
Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment Regulations), 1983.
Since there is a categorical statement made before this
Court as aforesaid in the aforesaid writ petitions that the
Public Works Department has handed over the houses to the
Housing Board, the only option that is available to the
Housing Board is to allot those houses by adhering to the
Karnataka Housing Board Rules, 1964.
13. Be it what it may. Since without following the
Allotment Rules, the houses were handed over to the Public
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
Works Department and the Public works Department has
made a statement that the houses are handed over to the
Housing Board.
14. Having said thus, henceforth, the Housing Board
is required to allot those four houses bearing Nos.16, 17, 18
and 19 in favour of the petitioners in the case on hand
strictly adhering to the Karnataka Housing Board
Regulations, 1983, in accordance with law.
15. Taking note of the fact that it is the petitioners
who are litigating the matter all these years the applications
filed by the petitioners and the initial deposit made by them
shall be considered as the applications under the Karnataka
Housing Board Regulations, 1983 and the allotment
procedures shall be commenced within a period of two
months from today.”
3. The petitioners as well as the respondents,
aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge, filed these appeals.
4. The petitioners filed a contempt petition in
CCC No.200164/2024 on 24.08.2024 for willful disobedience
of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the
aforesaid writ petition. The Housing Board has filed a writ
appeal in WA No.200071/2025 on 21.02.2025; the State has
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
filed an appeal in WA No.200187/2025 on 06.03.2025;
and the petitioners have filed a writ appeal in
WA No.200208/2026 on 21.09.2026.
5. The appellants have filed applications for
condonation of delay, and the said appeals have been filed
only after the contempt petition is filed. There is a delay in
filing appeals. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Israr
1
Ahmad Khan Vs. Amarnath Prasad and Others has held
that, delayed filing of appeals should be the exception, but in
recent times, the exception has practically evolved to
become the rule; orders passed by the Courts are not
complied with for a long time, and when contempt petitions
are filed, belated appeals, with tremendous delay, are
preferred. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held in
paragraph Nos.28 to 30 as follows:
“28. The (alleged) continuing contumacious conduct of
the defaulting party is sought to be justified on the mere
production of a Diary/Filing/Stamp Reporting Number
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 322
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
showing that an appeal has been preferred, so as to obtain
multiple adjournments in contempt matters.
29. We, in no uncertain terms, deprecate these
practices. It is felt that by such modus operandi, disobedient
litigants act brazenly which has the further effect of bringing
down the authority and majesty of the Courts and the rule
of law, interfering in the administration of justice. The same
may well, in certain situations, border on criminal contempt.
30. The High Courts should deal with such
unscrupulous litigants, moreso when they happen to be
‘State’, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution,
or like bodies, with an iron hand. Unless the High Courts, so
also this Court deal with these aspects firmly, we run the
clear risk of erosion of the unflinching faith that the ordinary
litigants of this country repose in the Judiciary at all levels.
It is the solemn duty of all of us manning the Courts across
the hierarchy to ensure that the public faith never wavers.”
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and
2
Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu has held in paragraph Nos.16
and 17 as follows:
2
(2014) 4 SCC 108
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not
be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh
the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same.
The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional
court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but
simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary
principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate
reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure,
the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise
whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or
not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but
in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite
disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the
court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a
litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms,
namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and
second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a
phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the
lis.
17. In the case at hand, though there has been four
years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court
chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to
scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored
without any justification. That apart, in the present case,
such belated approach gains more significance as the
respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility
had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some
kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that
remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not
foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in
injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may
have impact on others' ripened rights and may
unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable
realm of probability, may have been treated to have
attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence
to such indolent persons — who compete with
“Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our
considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any
indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court
should have thrown the petition overboard at the very
threshold.”
7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the appeals are
being filed only when the contempt petition is filed. In view
of the same, we do not find any sufficient grounds to
condone the delay. In view of the judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred supra, the
applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals are
liable to be rejected.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10745-DB
WA No. 200071 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200187 of 2025
WA No. 200208 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030025972025
8. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The applications filed in these writ appeals under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are hereby
rejected ;
ii. Consequently, the writ appeals are dismissed ;
iii. Other pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
PA
Ct:pk