AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No. 1. In these writ petitions, petitioner is calling in question the order dated 27.08.1981 passed by the land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, Anekal in LRF ACT No. 576/1975-76 and the order dated 24.10.2011 passed in LRF Act No. 576/75-76. Both these orders are produced at Annexures-D and F respectively.
Petitioner claims to be the owner of 12 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 12 of Goolimangala Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The grand father of respondents 2 and 3 herein filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 11 of Goolimangala Village showing the extent of land as 12 guntas and arraying the father of the petitioner as owner of the land. The land Tribunal according to the petitioner issued notice to the father of the petitioner who had by then died and therefore the notice was not served on him.
The Tribunal passed the order Annexure-D on 27.08.1981 conferring occupancy rights in favour of the grand father of respondents 2 and 3 in respect of Sy. No. 11.
Late father of respondents 2 and 3 filed a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 24853/1993 requesting for a direction to the Tahsildar to effect change in the survey number as Sy. No. 12 instead of Sy. No. 11. Petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 24853/1993. He was served with the notice of the writ petition and was represented by a Counsel. After hearing him, this Court passed an order on 03.11.1999 vide Annexure-E holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was clear that a wrong survey number was mentioned by mistake and therefore the mistake committed was required to be corrected as the land Tribunal had failed to apply its mind. The writ petition was disposed of with the following observations:
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the land Tribunal is directed to be modified in the occupancy rights granted to the petitioner, the survey number of the land shall be shown as Survey No. 12 and not Survey No. 11.
This order has attained finality as the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same. In fact, the review petition filed against this order has been dismissed.
However, during the year 2012 the petitioner has chosen to file these writ petitions challenging the original order passed by the land Tribunal in the year 1981 and also the subsequent order dated 24.10.2011 which is passed by the Tribunal as a consequence of the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 24853/1995 on 03.11.1999 ordering to correct the survey number mentioned in the order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights is illegal as it is passed without service of notice on the father of the petitioner and against a dead person. He further contends that the latest order passed by the land Tribunal on 24.10.2011 though as a consequence to the order passed in the writ petition, the same is also liable to be set aside as the said order, if sustained, will perpetrate injustice caused to the petitioner on account of the order passed by the Tribunal in the year 1981 against the father of the petitioner who was not served and had subsequently died before passing of the order.
It is apparent from the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24853/1995 that the petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No. 3. He had come to know of the order dated 27.8.1981 passed by the land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of the grand father of respondents 2 and 3 herein. He had also come to know, in the proceedings of the writ petition that there was a mistake committed in granting occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 11 instead of Sy. No. 12 and therefore the tenant had moved this Court seeking correction of the order passed by the land Tribunal. Hence, there was absolutely no justification for the petitioner to keep quite without making any grievance against the order dated 27.08.1981 passed by the land Tribunal. He could have atleast taken steps to file a writ petition challenging the order passed by the land Tribunal during the year 1981 immediately after service of notice in W.P. No. 24853/1995 or atleast after this Court allowed the said writ petition on 03.11.1999.
In the order passed by this Court on 03.11.1999 this Court has issued a positive direction to the Tribunal to modify the order granting occupancy rights mentioning the survey number as 12 in the place of survey number 11. The Tribunal was only required to carry out consequential change by modifying its order. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal as a consequence to the direction issued by this Court does not have any independent existence to challenge it separately. As long as the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 24853/1995 is not upset, the consequential correction made by the Tribunal on 24.10.2011 does not constitute a separate cause of action to be challenged. Therefore, the explanation offered by the petitioner stating that he has approached the Court immediately after passing of the order by the Tribunal on 24.10.2011 and therefore the delay has to be condoned cannot be accepted. During the interregnum and on account of the passage of time the property would have been dealt with in the manner permissible in law and as per the choice of the parties. If this Court intervenes at this stage, it will upset the settled things. No good grounds are made out to exercise the writ jurisdiction after such a long and inordinate delay to upset the order passed by the Tribunal during the year 1981.
The writ petitions therefore fail on the ground of delay and latches. Hence, the same are dismissed.
Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.