AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Guhjal
The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of Sy, No. 77/l measuring 2.50 cents and Sy. No. 78/2A measuring 1 acre of Aikab Village, Manglore Taluk. It is his claim that he was a (sic) under one Thamppamia Shetty and Aohatnna Shetty of Hoaamane family, It in the case of the petitioner that after the death of his father, he makes an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in his favor and in favor of his brothers. The said application it appears has been granted in part in as much as the occupancy rights has been granted in respect of few lands and rejected in respect of remaining lands.
The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the said order has attained finality. The petitioner claims that he could not make an application in respect of petition lands, by oversight, not withstanding the fact that he had been cultivating the land for over a period of 5 decades. Hence, he makes an application u/s 77-A of the Act. The competent authority having regard to the paucity of material was of the view that the petitioner has not established that he was cultivating the land as a tenant. This order by the competent authority was passed on 8.4.2002.
The petitioner sleeps over his rights and files an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal after lapse of three years and 20 days accompanied by an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal, having regard to the fact that the said inordinate delay of 3 years 20 days, having not been explained properly has dismissed the appeal. This order was passed on 22.8.2006. After lapse of 4 years, the petitioner files this writ petition.
The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal as well as before this Court was not deliberate but, however due to the fact that there was some communication gap between the petitioner and his Counsel.
Indeed, the said submission certainly cannot be accepted. Any litigant who is prosecuting the proceedings on the ground that he had made an application for grant of land certainly shall not keep quiet for a period of 3 years 20 days before filing an appeal before the Tribunal and another 4 years before filing the present writ petition I am of the view that the said inordinate day certainly can not be countenanced. It is no doubt true that sufficient cause is required to be liberally construed but not so liberal so as to make it redundant. I am of the view that explanation offered cannot be even come remotely closer to sufficient cause.
Another reason as to why the petitioner is not entitled to any relief is that he had made an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights except these two lands. The orders passed on the said application has attained finality.
Section 77-A (1) (ii) of the Act would deal with a situation where an occupant of a land who is required to be registered u/s 45 or 48 has failed to apply for registration of occupancy rights in respect of such land under Sub Section (1) of Section 48-A within a specified time can make an application.
In the case on hand, obviously, the petitioner was entitled to make an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of these two lands in as much as he had made an application in Form No. 7 in respect of other lands. These two lands having not been included, I am of the view that on merits also the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
At every stage, it is noticed that the petitioner is dragging his feet and has allowed the grass to grow under his feet in as much as, he does not include the lands in question in Form No. 7. He files a belated application before the competent authority, files a belated appeal before the Tribunal and files a belated writ petition before this Court. I am of the view that the petitioner is not vigilant in prosecuting the proceedings. No merit, Petition stands rejected.
Mr. Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.