AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri
Sri Shashidhar S. Karamadi, the learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners have raised the challenge to the order, dated 30.10.1979 (Annexure-A) allowing the Form No. 7 application and granting the occupancy rights in favour of the third-respondent.
Sri S. Vishwajith Shetty, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had no notice of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. He submits that the land in respect of which the occupancy rights are granted has ceased to be an agrarian land long ago. He submits that the third respondent is a tenant only in respect of the house standing on 6 cents of the land in question.
Sri Shashidhar S. Karamadi, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that this petition is presented after 33 years of the passing of the impugned order. He submits that the impugned order is passed after issuing notice to the parties concerned.
In paragraph No. 5 of the memorandum of the writ petition, the petitioner has made attempts to explain the delay. The same is extracted hereinbelow:
It is submitted that, recently the children, of 3rd respondent have tried to interfere with the lands in question and the petitioners were given to understand that attempts are made by the 3rd respondent and her children to sell the lands in dispute. On enquiry, the petitioners also given to understand that the land Tribunal had granted Occupancy rights of the lands in dispute in favour of the 3rd respondent. Immediately thereafterwards the petitioners applied for the certified copy of the order. Thereafterwards arrangements have been made to file the writ petition before this Hon''ble Court. The impugned order has been passed without notice to the petitioner nor to their father who has expired. The impugned order could not be challenged before this Honb''le Court earlier. No delay or latches can be attributed to the petitioner having regard to the fact that they were totally unaware of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and their late father had also not received any notice from the Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from error apparent on the face of the record which is utter violation of principles of Natural Justice. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners herein have approached this Hon''ble Court in the above writ petition.
The perusal of the afore-extracted paragraph do not even indicate in which year the petitioners have come to know of the passing of the impugned order. As the long delay of 32 years is not explained cogently and satisfactorily, I decline to entertain this petition on merits.
This petition is rejected on the short ground of delay and laches. It is made clear that no opinion whatsoever is expressed on the merits of the case. No order as to costs.