AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel Sri. K.N. Praveen Kumar for appellant, Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for R1 and R2 and learned Counsel Sri. Padubidri Mohan Rao for respondent No. 3.
As per office note, this appeal is barred by 43 days. I.A.II/08 has been filed for condonation of delay. For the reasons recorded in the said application, we are satisfied with the explanation given. Hence, I.A.II/08 is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. With consent, arguments heard.
Unsuccessful petitioners of W.P. No. 20955/2003 are before us challenging the order dated 17.3.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
In the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the appellants herein had prayed to quash the order dated 27.1.2003 passed by the Land Tribunal, Puttur. The dispute in this matter pertains to Sy. No. 57/5 having an area of 42 cents.
Learned Single Judge recorded a finding that, after verification of the original records produced by the learned Government Advocate, it was revealed that appellants had not filed any application for grant of occupancy rights with regard to Sy. No. 57/5 having an area of 42 cents. Since the application itself was not filed, the question of considering the case thereon did not arise. It has also been held by the learned Single Judge that the application for amendment of the original application filed under Form 7, was filed for the first time on. 17.9.1989 before the appellate authority, which has rightly been rejected by the tribunal. (See Seethadevi Vs. Narayana Kamath, ).
We are of the opinion that against such an order passed by the learned Single Judge, no case for interference has been made out.
For the said reasons, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.