IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.14133/2008 (LR-RE) BETWEEN:
1. N MUNIHANUMIAH S/O DODDANAGAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS NO.63, 2ND CROSS VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD DOMLUR LAYOUT BANGALORE -560071.
2. M LOKESH S/O LATE N MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. N PADMANABHA REDDY S/O LATE N MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. PILLA REDDY S/O LATE N MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 5. MOHAN REDDY S/O LATE N MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS PETITIONER NOS. 2 TO 5 ARE R/A NO.241, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT DOMLUR BANGALORE -560071.
6. K RAVINDRA S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.182, 2ND CROSS, NAGAPPA REDDY LAYOUT B.NARAYANAPURA, DOORAVANI NAGAR POST BANGALORE -560016.
7. N MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O LATE N NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 8. SUDARSHAN S/O LATE N NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS. 7 & 8 ARE R/A NO.23, 2ND FLOOR KRISHNA REDDY COLONY, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE -560071.
9. SMT. K. PREMA D/O SRI. SREERAMULU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS FLAT NO.19, MRE LAYOUT BEHIDN MANJUNATHA STORES VIDYANAGAR, BANGALORE-16.
PETITIONERS ARE REP. BY GPA HOLDER P.CHANDRASEKHAR S/O LATE H.PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YRS, R/AT NO.191, 7TH CROSS CHIKKABANASAWADI, BANGALORE-560 003.
(BY SRI.G G SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE ... PETITIONERS BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THAYAPPA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. SHIVA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4. MURALI S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 5. VENU S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 5 ARE R/O KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT B.NARAYANAPURA BANGALORE- 560016.
6. CHANDREGOWDA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 7. RAJANNA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 8. PRAKASH GOWDA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 9. SADANANDA GOWDA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 10. RAMANNA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 10 ARE R/A 7TH MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.11, B.NARAYANAPURA BANGALORE -560016.
11. DODDA ANNAIAH S/O LATE KOTAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S 11(A) UMASHANKAR S/O DODDA ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 11(B) GIRISH S/O DODDA ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 11(C) MANJU S/O DODDA ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 11(D) RAVI S/O DODDA ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 11(E) PUSHPA D/O DODDA ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 11(F)TULASI D/O DODDA ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 12. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 13. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 14. PILLAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 15. VASUDEVA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESPONDENTS 11 TO 15 CHILDREN OF LAT KOTAPPA AND 11(A) 11(F) TO 15 ALL ARE RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS WARD NO.10, B. NARAYANAPURA BANGALORE- 560016.
16. KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 17. NAGARAJA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 18. SRIRAMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 19. MADHU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESPONDENTS 16 TO 19 ARE SONS OF LATE GOVINDAPPA AND ARE RESIDING IN H.T.DEVEGOWDA ROAD NEAR RAMA TEMPLE, GAYATHRINAGAR, B.NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE -560016.
20. SMT LAKSHMAMMA D/O VEERA RAGHAVAIAH AGED 65 YEARS 21. SMT ANDALAMMA D/O VEERA RAGHAVAIAH AGED 64 YEARS 22. SMT KAMALAMMA D/O VEERA RAGHAVAIAH RESPONDENTS 20, 21 & 22 ARE R/AT BENNIGANAHALLI KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
23. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.M. UMESHAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1 & R23; SRI. S.K.V.CHALAPATHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-10 AND R-16 TO R-19;
SRI. S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R12 TO R15; R-11 (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) & (F) ARE SERVED;
V/O DATED 25.01.2010 R-20, R-21 & R-22 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 04.10.2001 PASSED IN ANNEXURE-A INSOFAR AS THE SAME RELATES TO SL.NOS. 103, 104, AND 105 OF B.NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, KRISNARAJAPURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK IS CONCERNED.
THIS WRIT PETITION BEING HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 04.10.2001 passed in LRF Nos.1574, 1459, 1352/1974, 1978/1974, 5325/1979-80, 3788/1976 and 4251/1976 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru insofar as it relates to granting occupancy rights infavour of Sriyuths T.Krishnappa, Narayanappa, Govindappa predecessor of respondent Nos.2 to 19 to the extent as described thereunder relating to Sy.Nos.103, 104 and 105 of B. Narayanapura Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
2. Petitioners have contended that lands bearing Sy.No.10/1 measuring 2 acres 19 guntas, Sy.No.139 measuring 3 acres and 28 guntas, Sy.No.116/02 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas, Sy.No.103 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas, Sy.No.104 measuring 2 Acres 18 guntas and Sy.No.105 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situated at B.Narayanapura Village, Krishnarajpuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk was in possession and enjoyment of one Sri. Doddanagappa Reddy. It is further contended that after the enactment of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short ‘Inams Abolition Act’) the lands in question stood vested in the Government and the Act providing for holders to seek for grant of occupancy rights as permanent tenants and other tenants. Said Doddanagappa Reddy filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the above said lands.
2.1 Petitioners have further contended that said application came to be registered as case No.34/59-60 on the file of Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition and on account of demise of Sri Doddanagappa Reddy, his Legal representatives have continued the proceedings and one of the son- Sri. Muniyappa tendered evidence regarding deceased Doddanagappa Reddy being in possession and enjoyment of the lands during his life time and sought for the lands being registered jointly in the names of all the four sons of Sri Doddanagappa Reddy. They further claim the jodidar/inamdar had participated in the enquiry before Land Tribunal and did not object to the claim and conceded that applicants were cultivating the lands in question. They have further contended that Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition, upheld the claim and granted occupancy rights in favour of the children of Sri Doddanagappa Reddy under Section 5 of the Act in respect of Sy.Nos.10/1, 139 and 116/2 and also registered them under Section 9A of the Act in respect of Sy.Nos.103, 104 and 105 by order dated nil- Annexure-B. Petitioners claiming to be the descendents of Sri Doddanagappa Reddy and on the strength of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition are contending to be the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question.
2.2 They further contend, names of some of the respondents was reflected in the RTC pertaining to the aforesaid lands and on enquiry made with the jurisdictional Tahsildar they learnt about impugned order dated 04.10.2001– Annexure-A having been passed and they immediately applied for certified copy and obtained the same and found that certain persons namely, Sriyuths T.Krishnappa, Narayappa, Kottappa and Govindappa had filed Form No.7 before First respondent claiming occupancy rights under Section 48A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, had obtained the same which lands were already re-granted in favour of first petitioner and his brothers under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. Hence, contending that respondent Nos.2 to 19 have no manner of right, title or interest over the lands in question and alleged order passed by Land Tribunal being without notice to petitioners, is liable to be set aside as it is in violation of principles of natural justice, they have sought for quashing of the proceedings.
3. Respondent Nos.2 to 19, who have been notified, have appeared and filed their statement of objections and have denied the claim of petitioners. It is contended that one Sri. Doddathayappa was in possession of lands of Sy.No.104, 105 and 108 from the year 1950 and Sri. T. Govindappa and Sri.Krishnappa had filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights and respondents 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Krishnappa and respondent Nos.16 to 19 are the legal heirs of Sri.T.Govindappa. They further state that said Sri.Doddathayappa had one more son by name Sri.Narayanappa and he had purchased 1 acre 15 guntas in Sy.No.104 from Smt.Andalamma and others and subsequent to purchase, mutation entries were effected in his name and said extent was not the subject matter of proceedings before Land Tribunal. However, his sons – respondent Nos.6 to 10 are made parties to the petition. It is further contended that Smt.Andalamma and others were the inamdars of Sy.Nos.48, 103 to 108, 5 and 76 measuring 14 acres 27 guntas and they had been arrayed as landlords in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal.
3.1 It is also further stated that inamdars had claimed occupancy rights before Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition and said authority by order dated 05.03.1963 passed an order under Section 10 by registering the occupants under Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act individually and as such their names were incorporated in all the revenue records establishing that they have been granted occupancy rights under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. They further contend that if at all petitioners were granted occupancy rights under Annexure-C, their names ought to have found a place in the revenue records, which otherwise does not disclose or in other words, it would belie the claim of petitioners. Hence, respondents have sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments Sri.G.G.Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.J.M.Umeshamurthy, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 23, and Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.H.N.Prakash for respondent Nos.2, 10 and 16 to 19 and Sri.S.GHegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.11(A) to 11(F) and 12 to 15.
5. It is the contention of Sri.G.G.Shastry, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that lands in question had stood vested in the State by Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and same will not vest in the State under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'Land Reforms Act'). He would also contend that undisputedly petitioners were not made parties in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and as such impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and as such it is illegal and arbitrary. He would further elaborate his submission by contending that respondents taking advantage of impugned order are attempting to interfere with the possession of lands, which is with the petitioners and unless impugned order is quashed, they would continue interference and cause hardship and irreparable loss. Hence, he prays for quashing the impugned order.
6. Per contra, Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy, learned Senior Counsel leading arguments on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 19 would contend that even according to petitioners they are claiming right over land by virtue of order registering their predecessor in title under Section 9A of Inams Abolition Act as tenants under the inamdars and on Karnataka Land Reforms Act (Amendment) Act, 1974, coming into force, all such lands stood vested in the State. He would contend that predecessors in title of respondents had applied to the Land Tribunal to register them as tenants, since they had been cultivating the lands in question from several decades and Land Tribunal by its order dated 04.10.2001 registered Sriyuths. T. Krishnappa, Naryanappa, Kotappa and Govindappa as tenants and respondent Nos. 2 to 19 are their sons, whereas respondent Nos. 20 to 22 are the original inamdars.
6.1. He would further contend that order of Land Tribunal is dated 04.10.2001 and present writ petition has been filed after the lapse of 7 years and on the ground of delay and latches petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, contending that there is no absolute vesting of land in the State and vesting is taken only if the person entitled to be registered as an occupant does not seek for the same. He would submit that relationship between an ordinary tenant and landlord would continue under provisions of Inams Abolition Act and to the said extent, it is saved and same is traceable under Section 3(c) of Inams Abolition Act. He would also draw the attention of Court to Section 9A of the Inams Abolition Act to contend that in respect of lands to which tenants have been registered as occupants under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Inams Abolition Act, would be entitled to contend that there is severance of relationship of landlord and tenant and other tenants would continue as a tenant of land in respect of which he was a tenant immediately before the vesting of land. Hence, he would contend that there is no vesting of land under Section 3 of Inams Abolition Act, insofar as lands that were cultivated by ordinary tenant, since relationship between inamdars as landlords and of the tenants are preserved and not affected by Section 3(c) of the Inams Abolition Act. He would submit that in the light of law laid down by this Court in the matter P.R.RANGACHAR vs. LAND TRIBUNAL, HOSAKOTE AND ANOTHER reported in (1979) 1 KLJ 457 and in the matter of MARIYAPPA vs. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MANDYA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 1978 KAR 731 the contention of petitioners that once land stood vested under the Inams Abolition Act there cannot be vesting of land again under the Land Reforms Act, is to be rejected.
6.2 He would also submit that petitioners are claiming right of a tenant under the Inamdars and under Section 44 of Land Reforms Act on such land being vested, their right is circumscribed by seeking grant of occupancy rights and they having not made any application, their rights if any, stood extinguished. In support his submission he has relied upon following judgments;
(i) (1979) 1 KLJ 457: P.R.RANGACHAR vs. LAND TRIBUNAL, HOSAKOTE AND ANOTHER (ii) ILR 1978 KAR 731: MARIYAPPA vs. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MANDYA AND OTHERS 7. In the light of rival contentions raised, it requires to be noticed that undisputed foundational facts are:
Lands in question namely, Sy.Nos.103, 104 and 105 of B.Narayanapura Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, was originally inam lands. On and after the enactment of Inams Abolition Act, such of those lands, except those saved under the Act, stood vested in the State. Respondent Nos. 2 to 19 as well as petitioners both are tracing their claim to the lands in question through inamdars. Petitioners are claiming to have been registered under the Inams Abolition Act as tenants. Under the said Act types of tenants have been defined and it is traceable in Sections 2(8), 2(12) and 2(14) viz., kadim tenants, permanent tenants and quasi permanent tenants. These tenants are entitled to seek for being registered under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Inams Abolition Act with effect on and from the date of vesting. Other than these tenants, every tenant of the inamdar would be entitled to continue as a tenant subject to provisions of Chapter-
III A. All such claims arising thereunder namely under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 would be determined by the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Inams Abolition Act. Thus, every tenants of the inamdar other than the tenants entitled to be registered as occupants under Sections 4, 5 and 6 would continue as a tenant and they would be governed by Chapter-III A of Inams Abolition Act. In other words, relationship of “other tenants” with “Inamdar” would not cease. In fact, Section 26-A found in Chapter-III A makes it very clear namely, it would clearly indicate the provisions of Chapter-III A shall apply to tenants continued under Section 9A. Undisputedly, petitioners and their predecessors are tracing their right under Section 9A of the Inams Abolition Act. In fact, original grantees through whom petitioners are claiming are tracing their right under the order dated NIL in Case No.24/1959- 1960 (Annexure-B), which is an order passed under Section 9A of Inams Abolition Act. For the purposes of immediate reference, operative portion of the said order is extracted hereinbelow:
“Claim for S.Nos.103. 104 and 105 The Jodidar has stated that the petitioner was cultivating the lands from 1951 to 1955 till he died. The Jodidar is silent about the statement of the petitioner’s sons that they have been cultivating the lands after the demise of their father. In the result, Sriyuts. Muniyappa, Munihanumiah, N.Krishna Reddy and N.Narayana Reddy are jointly registered under Section 9-A of the Act as tenants as tenants.
Dictated and transcript edited by me.
Sd/-
Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bangalore.”
8. The original grantees are said to have filed an appeal before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal against the order passed in Case No.24/1959-1960 and matter is said to have been remanded back to Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, upon which order the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams by his order dated 22.08.1999 is said to have confirmed the earlier order and held that petitioners/their predecessors are entitled to rights under Section 9A of the Inams Abolition Act and accordingly, they were registered as tenants. Appeal filed against said order before the Mysore Appellate Revenue Tribunal in appeal No.1161/1969 is said to have been dismissed by order dated 26.05.1970 and confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.5002/1970-Annexure-R-11 as evidenced from reply to rejoinder filed by petitioners on 11.02.2013, which order has reached finality.
9. Section 3 of Inams Abolition Act provides for consequences of vesting of any inam on publication of a notification by the appropriate Government appointing under Section 1(4) of Inams Abolition Act and on such notification being issued, inamdar would seize to have any interest in the inam other than interest expressly saved by or provided under the Inams Abolition Act vide Section 3(c) of Inams Abolition Act. It is also necessary to observe at this stage itself that Section 3(i) of the Inams Abolition Act provides that relationship of ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ between ‘inamdar’ and such of those tenants as defined thereunder would stand extinguished. Section 3(i) reads:
“3(i) the relationship of landlord and tenant shall as between the inamdar and a kadim tenant or permanent tenant or quasi permanent tenant, be extinguished;”
10. A plain reading of above provision would clearly indicate that relationship of ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ between ‘inamdar’ and a ‘kadim tenant’, ‘permanent tenant’ or ‘quasi permanent tenant’ would stand extinguished on publication of a notification under Section 1(4) of Inams Abolition Act. In other words, legislature has clearly expressed or indicated that relationship of landlord and tenant of these tenants would get severed or extinguished as provided under the Act and in respect of other tenants, relationship would continue vide Section 9A subject to provisions specified under Chapter-III A. To put it differently, if relationship of landlord and tenant is saved under the Act as indicated under Section 3(c) of the Act, such lands would not vest in the State and inamdar would continue to be the landlord and ordinary tenant, who is registered under Section 9A of the Inams Abolition Act, will continue as tenant, not withstanding the extinguishment of such right as indicated in Section 3(c) of Inams Abolition Act. This proposition also gets fortified by a plain reading of Section 9A of the Act itself and as such for the purposes of immediate reference it is extracted hereinbelow:
“9-A. Other Tenants of Inamdar: Every tenant of the inamdar, other than the tenants entitled to be registered as occupants under sections 4,5 and 6, shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting and subject to the provisions of Chapter-III- A, be entitled to continue as a tenant of the land in respect of which he was a tenant immediately before the date of vesting.”
Thus, section 9A of Inams Abolition Act would clearly indicate that every tenant of an inamdar other than tenants entitled to be registered as occupants under Sections 4 to 6, 7 and 8 even on vesting of the land, would be entitled to continue as a tenant of such land in respect of which he was a tenant before the date of vesting, subject to provisions of Chapter IIIA of Inams Abolition Act, 1954.
11. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M. MUNIKENCHAPPA VS. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 KLJ 579 has held that absolute vesting in the State occurs only when a person who is entitled to be registered as an occupant, has not sought for the same and on his default land vests in the State absolutely and not otherwise. It has been held:
“10. On a conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e) and 3(1)(k) of the Inams Abolition Act with the provisions of Section 10(3)(b) of the Act, it becomes clear that the absolute vesting in the State occurs only when a person who is entitled to be registered as an occupant, has not sought for the same and on his default, the land vests in the State absolutely and not otherwise. Sri Subba Rao submits that in the present case the person in occupation of the land namely, the grandfather of the petitioner, had in fact made an application under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act for the very purpose of registering him as an occupant and it is this order dated 3-2- 1962 under which the Special Deputy Commissioner has registered certain occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner’s grandfather and as such an order of this nature cannot be characterised as a grant order or the land ‘a granted land’ within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act.”
12. In the instant case, as noticed hereinabove, by virtue of ordinary tenants registered under Section 9A being saved under Section 3(c) of Inams Abolition Act, had continued as tenants of land in question and as such the relationship between ‘inamdar’ and such ordinary tenant did not get severed or in other words, it continue. When Chapter-III A of the Inams Abolition Act provides for continuance of tenancy, vesting of the land would not occur in respect of such lands or in other words, land that was cultivated by a ordinary tenant is saved and not affected by Section 3(c) of the Act. Thus, absolute vesting of the land would not occur in such circumstances as held by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of M. MUNIKENCHAPPA VS. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 KLJ 579 referred to herein supra. Thus, on coming into force the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973, such lands would also stand vested to the State and such land vesting under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, “other tenants” would get a right to seek for grant of occupancy rights or to be registered as tenants. Failure to file an application in Form No.7, after such land having stood vested in the State, empowers or entitle the State to grant occupancy rights of such lands in favour of any other person, who is claiming to be a tenant and only in the event of such tenant proving that on the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1973 he was cultivating the land as a tenant of the land. Thus, petitioners having failed to apply for registering themselves as occupants of the land, their right, if any, stood extinguished by virtue of Section 48A(8) of the Land Reforms Act. This view finds support from the judgments of this Court in the case P.R.RANGACHAR vs. LAND TRIBUNAL, HOSAKOTE AND ANOTHER reported in (1979) 1 KLJ 457. That apart, in the instant case revenue records in general and Annexure-R-3 series in particular, would clearly indicate that predecessor in title of respondent Nos. 2 to 19 have been cultivating the land in question from the year 1966 as cultivators and they having filed application for grant of occupancy right came to be considered by the Tribunal and occupancy rights were granted to them.
13. In the instant case, respondents have contended that there is delay in filing the petition. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that delay defeats equity. No doubt there is no prescribed time limit for filing a writ petition. Impugned order came to be passed on 04.10.2001 and writ petition in question has been presented on 10.11.2008. The father of petitioners 2 to 5 has been prosecuting the claim namely, had continuously and consistently contested the matter before various forums challenging the order registering him as an ordinary tenant under Section 9A of the Inams Abolition Act including filing of writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.5002/1970 and suffered an order of rejection of said writ petition vide order dated 17.12.1970 (Annexure-R-11) and yet the petitioners 2 to 5 have not made a whisper either in the writ petition or in the rejoinder explaining the cause for delay. As such on the ground of delay and latches also this writ petition is liable to be rejected.
14. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Writ petition stands rejected with no order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE RU/DR