AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal
The petitioner is not entitled for the relief on two counts. One is that the impugned order is passed in the year 1978 i.e., 28.1.1978. Thus there is a delay of 31 years in questioning the said order. The other is that the writ petition is dismissed as against the rival claimants who had also claimed occupancy rights in respect of a portion of the larger extent. The original applicant is one Baidya Poojary. He makes an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 20 items of the land. Pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-A, the occupancy rights are granted in respect of few of the items and insofar as the remaining, they have been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the original applicant are before this Court.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents.
In the first instance, no plausible convincing explanation is forthcoming as to the inordinate delay of 31 years. It is no doubt true that it, is stated that they are illiterates and the original applicant during her lifetime did not question the order, even though the claim was in respect of 2 acres 30 guntas. I am of the view that the said explanation is not sufficient for this Court to hold that the inordinate delay of 31 years is required to be condoned.
It is also to be noticed that the writ petitions are dismissed as against respondents 4. 6 & 12 and it stood abated insofar as respondents 11 and 13 are concerned. If any relief is to be granted to the petitioner the order passed in favour of respondents is also required to be set aside inasmuch as all the applicants would claim smaller portion in a larger area. It is also the case of the petitioner that all the applications ought to have been considered together. I am of the view that it is too late in the day for this Court to go into this controversy. It is also to be noticed that the original applicant during her lifetime did not question the order. It is only after her death petitioners have filed this writ petition questioning the impugned order. I am of the view that the delay in filing the writ petition is not explained and since, the writ petitions having been dismissed as against some of the respondents, it does not survive for consideration. Petitions stand rejected.
Mr.Shashidhar S Karmadi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2 is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.