High Court Karnataka High Court

Nagaraja vs The Land Tribunal on 18 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Nagaraja vs The Land Tribunal on 18 February, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And Nagaraj
Taluk a§_;.CD£st:Baga1km;, _  pmrrxoxmn

n Wgnjr s:xm.§§§¢hagash"' . etty and

  Andi 

 _  The i;an§iTribuna1,

RP bio. I 5632066
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA

CIRCUIT BEECH AT DHARWAD

DATED mrs mm 18TH DAY 01:' is-n;nRtIAR'§{    "

THE I-Iorrnm ma. JusTi:*JE:'i?§.I§.§A'1'iL:jL.%   '
mm I-iOH'BLE 
mvrm 1%'-:.t.?i1.'zg}1§ 

Between:

Nagaraj,  "'  --. 
S/0 Veerappa K11ppe:.i§'t, A   V
Aged about'52'ycars,, " 4'
Occ:Ag1'ici1lt1i1*:;,AA _  1 "
R/<2: Honn_akatti"'Jj11agc*,

=  &»i;:.1§;5jr§&sgr',_,--_Mv)

 .. ,Bagaiikt Distirict,
" V Ba-galkot,
 'bflsptesented by its Secretary.

f Sangappa Mahanthappa Kuppasad,
S/0 Mahanthappa Kuppasad,
Since deceastad by his legal
Representatives:

 



' V  'V  """ 

 Respondents i34(a) to 2 (c) are

~ *.._R<e.s1'flin.g "at 14"' Cross,
* §s5arga;;sa Réad, Malleshwaram,
' Banga1d;~.~e-550 003.


V.    Shivamallappa Shjppa Doddamani,

R13 Ne.i56f2G06

2 (a) Smtsulochazaa,
W/o late Sangappa Kuppasad,
Aged about 70 years,    A

2 (b) Rajkumar, 
s/0 Sangappa Kuppasgd,
Occzcivil Engineccr,  "~
Age: Major, 

2<c) Nataraj,      , 

:3/0 Sangappa i4.Tuppa§a¢:i,} *
Agc::Major, 1
Oec: Lefiinent Cou-Jfnel,” ‘
(if Defen¢_::e……’:

2(a) A
3/ 0. 18*3’$ansa12pa% Kuppaéad,

Occ:E:xgi;1Et:1′;'<.VAV — '

2 (c) '
S)'-Q lat: Sangappa Kuppasad,
' » _ Age:P¢!ajor', Gcczfioctcr,

o_ Sangappa Kuppasad,
' __"–i.f)<':c;?;V113Ii<: Relations Ofiioer,

Age:Major, R/0 Homzaakatti Village,
Tamk Ba Distr.ict:BagaIkot. RESPOHDEHTS

This petition filed 11/0 47 Rule 1 of CPC prayiag fer review
of the order/judgment and decree dated 25.08.2004 passed in

RP E*$o.}S6!200é

3

WA 7752/2903 (LR) on the me of the Hoxfble High of
Karnataka, Bangalore.

This petition coming on for orders, this day o,–.»

made the following:

annex on e 7

The instant application has beeI:ivii1:fi£1.by

condoning the delay of 546 days The
331d” delay has been expiaiped « 5 of the
amxiavit stating that after before the Apex

Court, he subnajttfi. _11is;: e;’2;jgS_I:ieat:io£i’_:.1o V” tléne Revenue Minister

requesting and to find out the real culprit
who has No.7 filed by the petitioner. In

iaursuaggoe Lto €i1e,epp1ice£%io£1, the Hon’ble Minister has direefed

‘eCommissio’fier to hold an enquiry to take neeessaxy

eietioxe. Deputy Commissioner Bagaikot directed the

‘ gm.+,geA nim;t§x* of Handloom and Textile, Zilla Panchayat,

~ e.__BagaI1<ot" .to7~ vefify the xeeozrls and to submit a report, [:1

of the directions, the Deputy Director submitted a

dated 2.2.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner, Bagaikot.

V ifhe Deputy Commissioner, alkoi: on the report of the Deputy

Director addressw a Iette e Tahsildar on 16.2.2006 to take

RP No. 15612006

4
necessary action after eazeful perusal of the records. Thereafizer

on 28.2.2006 he contacted his counsel and showed

taken back by him {mm the Civil Court. In :’_f£he%_

directed him to secure the certified copy of

o.s.No.40/1980 on the file of the c:;vi11_€:o1.u9£.. j;

same, he was instructed by his ta ” ,

petition. In the meanwhile, the of film’ g the
review pefition has been rred sav1d’v kielay is not

intentional or deliberate. that the delay

may he co.edo_ne§i’eie:d.’;§e£ifion may be heard on merits.

‘2. After bf statement made in panagaphs 4

awn, that the inozdinate delay of 546

da3*s; ha;s ..I;.j.c)<t been_ satisfactorily explained by assiwing cogent

_ ree.s:::;AtVii.s'..V.E3};'Vt'}E§'i*:'–peeiiioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner

V rzeuld. ebt "eat his caee for seeking registration of occupancy

.::;efo':=§. the Land Tribunal, leamed Single Judge ef this

also befere the Division Bench of this court. Against

° ': t:_t1e–eV1*c1er passed, he has filed S.L.P.No.2S558-59/2004 befere the

Court. The said S.L.P. is alien dismissed on 03.91.2005.

After having battled. befme the four legal fa-rams, he could net

.4

,z~~~~~~»~~»~
.{

RP }\i0.I56f20G6

by the Iealned Single Judge and the qucstzkfiil

pcsmission to enquire is nowhere concemcd t1.3¢"C$1sexo11'«.héund ' j A'

112::-r this is a case for oondozxing the

the applicafion M4] 2006 filed bfivthg pefifioncr Vf5(V};f tha=:

delay is rejected 3.3 misconceivcd.

4. However, in the :\?§i§’.V”‘1″i§1ve gone through
the order pags:-séfi; by? 25.08.2004 in
W.A.No.7752/ nnnr or ilicgality as such
cemmittedv has made out” any good
gonna! has bean confirmed by the Apex

Court as st2zViEe:{;1. :;.11;V)V::a_. 2 ‘A._He1:_i i:c, the review petition filed by the

4_..pc1:itiom§;ruis;~a1so iiab1c_§_9Abe rejected as devoid of merits. In the

stsfited filiiexfe, the instant review petition is zvejectcd on the

§i.’é’i”a3z’_a.z;(i’v.}atchcs and also on merits.

sa/~
Judge

sa/-.

Iudge
Jml —