AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th April 2007 made in Writ petition No. 18670/2006. The unsuccessful writ Petitioners are the Appellants herein. The writ Petitioners are the legal heirs of one Bhimasha, who made an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Gulbarga for registering his name as an occupant in respect of an extent of 19 Acres 17 guntas of land in Sy. No. 48 of Kapanoor Village of Gulbarga Hobli and Taluk. The Land Tribunal in its order dated 24.8.1982 held that Bhimasha and two other applicants were not the tenants, but they were labourers. Aggrieved by the said order, the legal heirs of Bhimasha have moved the High Court in W.P. 18670/2006 after 24 years, which came to be rightly dismissed by the learned single Judge by order dated 17.4.2007 mainly on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. Hence the present appeal.
Learned Counsel for the writ Appellants contend that the Appellants are illiterate and they are making repeated representations to the authorities that they were tenants but not labourers and thus reiterated the contentions made before the learned single Judge. We are unable to appreciate the contentions made on behalf of the writ Appellants. It is true that right to approach for a judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India is a remedy in distinct, but such remedies which are extra ordinary in nature has to be availed off within reasonable time. Even though strictly speaking there is no period of limitation for exercising power conferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India, but there can never be a case where the Courts can interfere in the matter after passage of certain length of time. It is settled law that the Courts can refuse to exercise the extra ordinary power conferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India to those who do not approach within the reasonable time. Hence finding no merits, the writ appeal is dismissed.