IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.3234 OF 2018 (LR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI R.S. DEVARAJU SON OF LATE SHIVABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2. MAHALINGAPPA SON OF THONDAPPANA NANJAPPA @ NANJAPPA, SON OF NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF RANGAPURA, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201. (BY SRI RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.
3. THE TAHSILDAR TIPTUR TALUK, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.
4. THE LAND TRIBUNAL REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/TAHSILDAR, TIPTUR TALUK, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.02.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.55938 OF 2017 AND 4070 OF 2018 (LR-RES) AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AS PRAYED FOR.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.55938 of 2017 and 4070 of 2018, in dismissing the writ petitions the petitioners are in appeal.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the impugned order of the Tribunal was sought to be modified by filing an application before it and seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre, 8 guntas of Survey No.89 of Keregodi, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, in favour of the first petitioner and 30 guntas of land in Survey No.98 of the said village in favour of the second petitioner. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the same. Hence, the instant petition was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge on considering the plea of the petitioners was of the view that there is an inordinate delay of 24 years, in challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Firstly, the petition has been filed after a lapse of 24 years. The delay has not been properly explained. Even though delay has to be considered liberally, the same cannot be applied to the facts of this case. The huge delay requires to be explained appropriately. Even though every single day’s delay need not be explained, there should be some acceptable reason for condonation of delay. None of those reasons exist. Hence, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that there is a huge delay in challenging the impugned order.
5. So far as law is concerned, the Tribunal is not permitted to modify the order passed by it. There is no power vested with the Tribunal to do so. In the absence of any power, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the same. Hence, on both these grounds, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit, are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JJ/-