R.S. Prabhakar vs The Land Tribunal and Others

H.G. Balakrishna, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order of the Land Tribunal, Sakaleshpur, Dated 21st September, 1984. The writ petition was filed on 31st July, 1986. The delay is a little less than two years.

The question for consideration is whether the delay deserves to be condoned.

Explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner in para 6 of the writ petition. What is contended by the petitioner is that he is an aged person and also that he is ailing besides being faced with financial distress. The petitioner has stated that even to make both ends meet, it is difficult for him. He has also stated that the impugned order was not communicated to the petitioner though there is a statutory obligation to do so under the Land Reforms Act. It is only when respondent - 3 threatened to dispossess the petitioner, that the petitioner came to know of the impugned order and thereafter approached the Office of the Land Tribunal, applied for certified copy of the impugned order and with the assistance of the Legal Aid Cell of the State Legal Aid Board, preferred this writ petition.

In the above circumstances, the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing the writ petition deserves to be condoned.

In the matters of this nature, it is necessary to take a liberal view bearing in mind the principle laid down by the Supreme court in the decision reported in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, wherein it is laid down that factors such as poverty, residence in the interiors of villages, ignorance of the intricacies of law of limitation and such other factors should be taken into account while considering question of condonation of delay. I am of the opinion that these broad principles are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, I condone the delay.

This case is transferred to the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Hassan, with a direction to treat this as an appeal preferred before it and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law after due intimation of the date of hearing to all the parties concerned. All the questions which are raised in this writ petition are left open for decision on merits.