IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.25901 OF 2010(LR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.25903 OF 2010(LR-RES) WP.NO.25901 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SYED SARDAR S/O LATE SRI SYED HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. SMT.GULSHEERUNNISSA D/O LATE SRI SYED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O SOLUR VILLAGE, POST AND HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.G.SHANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. THE TAHSILDAR MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. SRI SYED SAMIULLA *SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s 3(a) SMT.SHAHEDA BEGUM W/O LATE SRI SYED SAMIULLA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 3(b) SMT.LUBNA BANU D/O LATE SRI SYED SAMIULLA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3(c) SRI MEER JOUHER S/O LATE SRI SYED SAMIULLA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENTS 3(a) TO 3(c) ARE R/AT SOLUR POST AND HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
*AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 8.11.2016.
4. SRI SYED KALEEMULLA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR SMT.MISBUNNISSA W/O LATE SRI SYED KALEEMULLA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.31, ‘D’ CROSS, NEAR MAMOOR MASJID PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU.
5. SRI SYED AMANULLA S/O LATE SRI MEER SANAULLA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT SOLUR VILLAGE POST AND HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI K.S.UDAY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI C.M.NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5 VIDE ORDER DATED 4.11.2016 NOTICE TO R3(a-c) IS HELD SUFFICIENT) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ANNEXURE-A DATED 22.4.1993 PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE AND OF ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS THEREON ETC., WP.NO.25903 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SYED SARDAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED HUSSAIN 2. SMT.GULSHEERUNNISSA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O LATE SYED HUSSAIN BOTH 1 AND 2 ARE R/O SOLUR VILLAGE, POST AND HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.G.SHANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. TAHSILDAR MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. SINCE SYED SHABBEER IS DEAD BUT REPRESENTED BY HIS LR WIFE SMT.RASHEEDA BANU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS SOLUR VILLAGE POST AND HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. SRI ABDUL RAHEEM AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE MEER ASADULLA, SOLUR VILLAGE AND POST HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI K.S.UDAY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI C.M.NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND GRANT THEIR PRAYERS & QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 22.4.1993 PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE AND OF ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS THEREON ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioners is that their father was a tenant. Thereafter, the sons have become the tenants of the land in question. They have filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the members of the family and not to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st petitioner’s wife filed writ petition No.27505/1993. By the order dated 14-6-2002 the writ petition was dismissed for default. Thereafter nothing happened for the next 10 years. The present petitions are filed on 19th August, 2010, challenging the very same order of the Land Tribunal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to explain the delay in filing the writ petitions and secondly as to how a second writ petition is maintainable when the earlier writ petition challenging the same order has already been rejected. The learned counsel referred to paras 9 & 18 of the writ petition to make out a case of delay. I have heard him and considered the same. There is not even a whisper in the entire writ petitions as to when the writ petitioners came to know of the impugned order being passed and why there is a delay in filing the petition. The entire petition is clouded by allegations of fraud against the respondents, the fundamental rights, Judgments of the Supreme court etc. However, the petitioners would firstly have to convince this court that there is no delay and laches on their part in coming to this court. When his wife has approached this Court, the petition which was rejected in the year 2002 the delay should have been explained at least from the year 2002 to 2012. There is not even an explanation of a single day’s delay. There is not even a reference as to when he came to know of the same. Therefore, it is apparent that in the absence of any reasons the petitions would have to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-