IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.1988/2018 (LR-RES) BETWEEN:
K.BHASKAR KALMADI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE K.KRISHNAPPA POOJARY R/O NEAR KALMADI JUNCTION PO: MALPE-576 101 UDUPI DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI VYASA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI, BY ITS SECRETARY AND SPECIAL TAHSILDAR UDUPI-576 101.
2. K.SUDHIR RAO AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O ANANTHAKIRSHNA RAO R/AT A 702, NEW HARWARD GARDEN CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY GREENWOOD COMPLEX GHODBUNDER ROD THANE (WEST) 400 610 MAHARASHTRA.
3. STELLA MARRY’S CHURCH KALMADI, KODAVOOR VILLAGE P.O.MALPE-576 101.
UDUPI DISTRICT REP. BY REVERENT FATHER ALBAN D’SOUZA AGED 51 YEARS 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY REVENUE DPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALROE-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP FOR R1 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A DTD 7.3.1979 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN NO.LRY 67/576/TRI/3584/78-79 IN SO FAR AS REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR THE LAND IN SY.NO.180/10-NANJA MEASURING 35 CENTS OF KODAVOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Learned HCGP accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 4 and he is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
2. Petitioner herein is the son of Late K.Krishanappa Poojary. Admittedly, the father of petitioner was applicant in Case No.LRY 67/576/TRI/3584/78-79 seeking occupancy rights in respect of several lands by claiming himself to be the tenant of the said lands under various landlords. His application is considered under order dated 07.03.1979 in respect of all the properties, except with reference to 35 cents of land in Sy.No.180/10 of Kodavoor Village, Udupi Taluk. It is the said order of rejection dated 07.03.1979 is sought to be challenged in this writ petition and which is filed after inordinate delay of 40 years.
3. In this writ petition, there is an attempt to explain the inordinate delay by stating that petitioner’s father died on 01.01.1992 and that during his life time he had bonafide believed that the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy right in respect of the land in question. It is stated that the aforesaid assumption was on the basis that there was no objection by the second respondent who is the owner of the aforesaid land. It is also further stated that non-inclusion of the land in question in the impugned order has come to the knowledge of the petitioner during the month October 2017, where there appears to be an attempt by the third respondent with reference to the alleged possession of petitioner over the land in question. It is stated that only after enquiring with the third respondent, he came to know that the second respondent has sold the said land to the third respondent under the sale deed dated 03.05.2017, which according to him is the cause for filing this writ petition seeking interference with the order of rejection of his father’s claim with reference to land bearing No.180/10 measuring 35 cents of Kodavoor Village.
4. When the entire averments in the writ petition more particularly with reference to the averment in paragraph No.7 of the writ petition clearly indicates that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order dated 07.03.1979 passed by the third respondent - Land Tribunal, inasmuch as the same being sought to be impugned in this proceedings after 40 years of the said order being passed. Therefore, this writ petition is required to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches itself. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB