AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal
Pursuant to an order dated 27.9.1976 occupancy rights have been granted in favour of the respondents. The said order is sought to be assailed after a lapse of 35 years. The contention sought to be put forward by the petitioner is that he was wholly unaware of the proceedings inasmuch as he was not made a party. He submits that the property in question belonged to respondent No. 3-Shiroor Mutt and subsequently, the petitioner has become the owner pursuant to a will stated to have been executed by a subsequent Moolageni tenant. I am not impressed.
Apparently, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he was not aware of the proceedings at all for a period of 35 years. Indeed, if it were to be a case that he was not impleaded in the proceedings, he should have known by this time that his possession, is sought to be threatened. It is rather too late in a day for this Court to examine the claim of the petitioner after a lapse of 35 years. Having said so, since it is a stale claim, it cannot be entertained.
Petition stands rejected.
Mr. R. Kumar learned High Court Government Pleader is ����� within four weeks.