Shankaragouda vs The Authorised Officer and Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—Misc. W. 2520/2011 and Misc. W. 2521/2011 are filed by the counsel for Petitioner for condoning the delay of about 1170 days in filing the recalling application and for recalling the order dated 24th June 2008 respectively.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government. Advocate appearing for first Respondent.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for first Respondent, submits that the inordinate delay of nearly 1170 days in filing the recalling application has not been explained satisfactorily and that the cause shown is a misconceived one and therefore the said application is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

After careful perusal of the delay application filed, it can be seen that, there is an inordinate delay of nearly 1170 days in filing the recalling application. The said delay has been explained at paragraphs 2 to 9 of the affidavit, accompanying the application dared 3rd March 2011. The inordinate delay of nearly 1170 days in filing the recalling application has not been satisfactorily explained, by explaining each day''s delay, giving cogent reasons nor the reasons assigned inspire the confidence of this Court. Except narrating the history of the case, no credible reasons are assigned. Whenever a party comes before the Court, he has to come with clean hands and state the true facts, such that the Court can attach some credibility for such statements. Without any prima facie case, relying on omnibus statements and condoning the delay would result in misplaced sympathy. Therefore, in the absence of proper explanation of inordinate delay of about 1170 days in filing the recalling application, I am of the considered view that, it is not justifiable to condone the inordinate delay.

Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated supra, and for not explaining the inordinate delay satisfactorily, the instant application for condoning delay is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and accordingly Misc. W. 2520/2011 is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of delay condonation application, recalling the order dated 24th June 2008 does not arise for consideration. Hence, Misc. W. 2521/2011 for recalling the order dated 24th June 2008 is also dismissed as devoid of merits.

However, in the interest of justice and equity, I have gone through the entire material available on file. It emerges from the same that, the Petitioner had filed an application u/s 7-A in the prescribed form as per Section 77-A of the amended Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called ''the Act''), seeking registration of occupancy rights, on the ground that, due to illiteracy, ignorance and not being acquainted with the legal proceedings, he could not file Form No. 7 within the prescribed period. The said application had come up for consideration before the Authorized Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, who in turn, after affording opportunity to the owner of the land in question and also the Petitioner, observed specifically in the order impugned produced at Annexure B to the writ petition that, for the agricultural year 1973-74 and prior to that, the name of the Petitioner is not found in the cultivator''s column, column 12 (2) of the record of rights. Further, it is stated that, the name of the Petitioner is found as owner of Sy. No. 133, measuring 05 acres 09 guntas, situate at Bankvalli village, Sorab Taluk, Shimoga District. It is specifically recorded by the competent authority, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on its file that.the Petitioner is holding lands in excess of the eligible limit, prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Act, and therefore, his application for grant of occupancy rights is rejected. The said reasoning given for rejecting the Form No. 7-A of the Act filed by the Petitioner u/s 77-A of the Act is just and proper and I do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the said authority. Therefore, on merits also, Petitioner does not have any case and the prayer sought in the writ petition deserves to be rejected as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for first Respondent is permitted to file memo of appearance, within three weeks from today.