AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 18-9-1978, passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi, in Case No. LRY-78-33-TR 5399-8-79 vide Annexure-A. By the impugned order at Annexure-A, the Land Tribunal, Udupi, has granted occupancy rights in favour of the second respondent in respect of Sy. Nos. 19/10 measuring 13 cents, 26/5 measuring 25 cents, 283/3 measuring 70 cents and 26/11 measuring 25 cents of Herga village.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
The petitioner claims that Kaveri @ Lakshmiamma was the owner of Sy. No. 283/3 measuring 2.5 acres having purchased it through registered sale deed dated 15-11-1960 along with other lands. The second respondent filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos. 19/10 measuring 13 cents, 26/5 measuring 25 cents, 283/3 measuring 70 cents and 26/11 measuring 25 cents. The Tribunal by its order dated 18-9-78 has granted occupancy rights in favour of the second respondent.
The petitioner contends that the land bearing Sy. No. 283/3 is a punja land. It was in possession of late Kaveri till her death. The petitioner is the adopted son of Kaveri and she has executed a Will in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is continuing in possession of the land in question and other lands. Recently, the second respondent interfered with his possession. On verification, the petitioner came to know about the impugned order granting occupancy rights in favour of the second respondent Therefore, this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the land in question was a punja land and the Tribunal without considering it has granted occupancy rights in favour of the second respondent and therefore, the impugned order cannot sustained in law. He also submitted that no enquiry has been held as required under law. Further he submitted that it is only recently the petitioner came to know about the impugned order. Therefore, there is delay in filing the writ petition. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
As against this, the learned Government Pleader supported the impugned order. She also submitted that the impugned order has been passed in the year 1978 and the petitioner has approached this court in the year 2013. There is inordinate delay of nearly 35 years in approaching this court. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
It is relevant to note, the second respondent has filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos. 19/10 measuring 13 cents, 26/5 measuring 25 cents, 283/3 measuring 70 cents and 26/11 measuring 25 cents of Herga village. The owners have appeared before the Tribunal and admitted the tenancy. The petitioner''s adoptive mother has participated in the proceedings. The Tribunal holding that the second respondent is cultivating the land has granted occupancy rights in favour of the second respondent in respect of Sy Nos. 19/10 measuring 13 cents, 26/5 measuring 25 cents, 283/3 measuring 70 cents and 26/11 measuring 25 cents. After lapse of nearly 35 years, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner''s adoptive mother has participated in the proceedings and she has not questioned the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.