IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.3260/2018(SCST) BETWEEN:
MUNIREDDY S/O PILLA REDDY AGE 64 YEARS RESIDING AT HULIMANGALA HOSAKOTE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION KOLAR-563 101.
3. THANAPPA S/O DODDA SHAMBUGA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSAKOTE HULIMANGALA HOSAKOTE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.
4. MUNIYAMMA W/O CHIKKA SHAMBUGA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSAKOTE HULIMANGALA HOSAKOTE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI I.G. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 16/06/2009 PASSED IN THE WP NO. 3050/2009 FILED BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. Reuben Jacob, learned Advocate for appellant, Sri. S. S. Mahendra, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. I.G. Gachchinamath, learned Advocate for respondent No.3.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Hon’ble Single Judge.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, petitioner had purchased the land in question as per registered sale deed dated 05.09.1995. The said land was originally granted in favour of Sri.Dodda Shambuga, father of third respondent, in the year 1995. Thereafter, certain proceedings under the PTCL Act were in progress and litigation reached this Court. The Hon’ble Single Judge by order dated 16.06.2009, rejected the writ petition confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.3/2007-08 dated 11.12.2008. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned Advocate for the appellant arguing in support of the application for condonation of delay submitted that petitioner’s son who was looking after the case right from the time the proceeding was initiated before the Assistant Commissioner, passed away on 02.05.2010. Therefore, petitioner did not have any knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings. On coming to know of the representation dated 29.08.2018, filed by respondent No.3 before the Tahsildar, Malur Taluk, Kolar District requesting restoration of possession of the land in question, petitioner approached the Tahsildar and secured a complete set of documents relating to the proceedings and filed the instant appeal.
5. Sri. Reuben Jacob, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that revenue entries have been changed from petitioner’s name to that of third respondent on 06.03.2009 vide MR 22/2008-2009.
6. It is trite that the revenue entries prima-facie show the ownership of the land and they have presumptive value. Admittedly, the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is in the year 2009 and there is delay of nearly 10 years in filing this appeal. The contention urged on behalf of the appellant in support of the application is that his son was pursuing the case and as such, the appellant had no knowledge of the proceedings, is untenable. In the circumstance, we find no sufficient ground to condone the delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, appeal is also dismissed.
All pending applications are disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE VBS