ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24-10-1979 in Case No. 686 of 1976 (Annexure-F) passed by the 2nd respondent has presented this writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of Sy. Nos. 12 and 13 measuring 8.55 acres and 22.62 acres respectively situated at Bukkasagar. He is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. Be that as it may. The 3rd respondent herein claiming to be the tenant has filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 4 acres 27 guntas in Sy. No. 12 and 11 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No. 13 on 20-12-1976. The said application was registered. The Land Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on records granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent by its order dated 24-10-1979. The Land Tribunal held that the petitioner himself has filed Form 11 declaring his total holdings of the lands. In the said declaration, the petitioner has shown the 3rd respondent as the tenant to an extent of 4 acres 27 guntas and 11 acres 31 guntas in Sy. Nos. 12 and 13 of Bukkasagar Village. The Land Tribunal has granted the occupancy rights holding that when the landowner himself has declared in his Form 11 that the 3rd respondent is the tenant of the lands in question, after issuing notice and after publishing the same and affixing the notices at the village panchayat office has granted the occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 24-10-1979, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for respondent 3 and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.
4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is not a speaking order and it does not disclose any material in support of tenancy. He has taken me through the order sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal, which does not disclose the issuance of notice. He vehemently submitted that Form 7 filed by the 3rd respondent itself is not maintainable as he has not mentioned the boundary to the extent claimed by him, except stating that he is claiming tenancy to the extent of 4 acres 27 guntas and 11 acres 31 guntas in Sy. Nos. 12 and 13. Further, he submitted that there is no delay in filing the writ petition as the petitioner came to know about the impugned order when he has received notice on 19-7-2002 informing that he must be present in the land for fixing boundary of the said land by the Survey Department. Therefore, he submitted that the delay is not intentional or deliberate and it is for bona fide reasons. If the said delay is not condoned the petitioner will be put to great hardship and inconvenience and it cannot be compensated by any other means. If the delay is condoned no hardship will be caused to the 3rd respondent. He has submitted that there is no enquiry as such, was conducted by the Tribunal as envisaged under Rules 16 and 17 of the Land Reforms Rules. He has specifically pointed out that, Sub-clause (2) of Rule 17 has not at all considered by the Tribunal, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated and concluded by the Tribunal is vitiated and it is liable to be set aside.
5. To substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kichappa Setty Y. v. Somanna Naika and Anr., 1977(2) Kar. L.J. 157, and stated that this Court has held that “where portions of survey sub-divisions are not demarcated by boundaries before the Tribunal passes the order and the order does not set out the boundaries, such an order is incapable of implementation”. Further, he has placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in the case of Bakilana Chinnappa v. Land Tribunal, Mercara Taluk and Ors., 1978(1) Kar. L.J. 75, and stated that “when there is no application and there is no notice issued in respect of a survey number, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hold that the said survey number has vested in the State Government and Tribunal is not entitled to grant occupancy rights”.
Regarding the delay also, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Yamunappa v. Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, Davanagere,(2001)4 KCCR 2698, and stated that this Court has held that “where the order itself appears to be prima facie wrong and is manifestly unjust to the party, even gross delay of 17 years in moving the appeal was condoned”. Therefore, he submitted that in view of the well-settled law laid down by this Court in series of matters and if the ratio of the above cited judgments are taken into consideration, the impugned order is not at all sustainable and it is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2, inter alia, contended and justified the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. He submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at threshold on the ground of delay and laches, as there is an inordinate delay of more than nearly 21/2 decades which has not been properly explained by the petitioner. The petitioner himself has given a declaration in Form 11 that the land measuring 4 acres 27 guntas and 3 acres 11 guntas in Sy. Nos. 12 and 13 are tenanted land and he has mentioned the name of the 3rd respondent as tenant. He further submitted that, when the petitioner himself has mentioned that he has not made any efforts to show what is the boundary which is not cultivating by the 3rd respondent, it is not open for him now to contend after the lapse of 21/2 decades that the boundary is not shown in Form 7. Therefore, it has no substance and it is liable to be rejected. Further, he has vehemently submitted that the tenancy was granted in the year 1979 and the specific case of the petitioner that there is no notice of the proceedings to him and the order of the Tribunal is illegal. The said submission is not at all sustainable and it is liable to be rejected with exemplary costs, in view of the fact that the notice was issued to the petitioner; the same was served on him on 2-8-1979; the petitioner is the signatory to the said notice and the notice was also affixed in the village panchayat office of Bukkasagar Village. These materials are very much available on the original file. Therefore, he has submitted that the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal and the petition is liable to be rejected.
7. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent filed a detailed statement of objection and substantiated his case stating that the occupancy rights granted in favour of the 3rd respondent is strictly in accordance with law. No error or miscarriage of justice was committed by the Tribunal and as a matter of fact, he is cultivating the said land since from several years and this fact is evident from the declaration given by the petitioner himself. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the order passed by the Land Tribunal.
8. I have perused the impugned order carefully, re-evaluated the entire material available on record including the order sheet maintained by the Tribunal (Annexure-D).
9. The main attack of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the Tribunal has proceeded to pass order without issuing notice. Secondly, he contended that the impugned order is not a speaking order. Thirdly, he submitted that Form 7 filed by the 3rd respondent is not at all maintainable as he has not mentioned the boundaries for claiming the occupancy rights to the extent what he has claimed and he has not produced any material in support of his tenancy. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court as stated supra. In my considered view, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case. The law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the learned Single Judge had no quarrel. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has not complied with Rules 16 and 17 of the Land Reforms Rules. It is significant to note that it is very unfortunate that the learned Counsel without going through the relevant rules and without application of mind has made such statement. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 is concerned, that has been inserted as per the amendment by GSR 327, dated 2-11-1979 with effect from 15th November, 1979. But in the instant case, the impugned order was dated 24-10-1979. Therefore, the question of considering the mandatory statute of the Land Reforms Rules does not arise, because the impugned order was passed in the month of October 1979 and the Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 was inserted only with effect from 15th November, 1979. Therefore, the said submission has no substance and it is liable to be rejected at threshold.
11. In the instant case, after scanning the entire records, it discloses that notice was issued to the petitioner on 2-8-1979 and petitioner himself has received the notice and put his signature. To verify the signature of the petitioner, this Court has verified the signature of the petitioner in the Vakalath filed by the petitioner with the signature on the notice dated 2-8-1979. Both the signatures tally with each other. Therefore, the petitioner has intentionally and deliberately suppressed the vital material facts before this Court and his contention that he has no notice of the proceedings before the Tribunal is to be rejected.
12. The Land Tribunal has complied with the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and Rules. From the records it discloses that the said notice was also affixed in the panchayat office and notice has been issued to the 3rd respondent also. The Land Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record has rightly granted the occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent. It is relevant to note here itself that, regarding tenancy, the petitioner himself has admitted in the declaration filed under Form 11 declaring the total holding of his land. In the said declaration, he has mentioned that Sy. Nos. 12 and 13 measuring 4 acres 27 guntas and 11 acres 31 guntas are cultivating by the 3rd respondent as tenant. Once he has admitted his tenancy, then the question of challenging the same after the lapse of more than 25 years does not arise. Therefore, I do not find any justification to consider the case of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Tribunal was not signed by the members of the Land Tribunal and its Chairman. But it is clear from the original records that the order passed by the Land Tribunal was duly signed by the Chairman and its two members at page No. 11 of the order. Therefore, Rules 16 and 17 of the Land Reforms Rules was complied with and there is no violation as such was committed by the Tribunal. Hence, the said submission is not sustainable and it is to be rejected.
13. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding the delay and laches is concerned, it is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because in the present case the petitioner has been duly served with notice on 2-8-1979 directing him to be present before the Land Tribunal on 27-8-1979 and the said notice was received by the petitioner. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Counsel is not at all helpful to the petitioner. It is pertinent to note here itself that the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the resident of Middapur and the lands are situated at Bukkasagar and the said notice was sent to Bukkasagar address. The said notice was served to the petitioner is not in compliance with the Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules. The said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no basis because it is not the case of the petitioner that he has not at all visited the said village. When he is holding the large extent of lands in both villages, it is quite natural that he might have visited the place on a particular day when the notice was issued and served to the petitioner. Therefore, this submission cannot be accepted and it is liable to be rejected.
14. Yet another submission of the respondents is that the petition is liable to be rejected at threshold on the ground of delay and laches. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal as early as on 24-10-1979 and the present petition is presented before this Court on 10-12-2002. There is an inordinate delay of more than 25 years in filing the writ petition. The petitioner has not at all explained the delay satisfactorily by assigning any cogent reasons, except stating that when he has received notice on 19-7-2002, then only he came to know about the order passed by the Land Tribunal and the delay, if any, is not intentional and deliberate and it is bona fide. The same cannot be accepted because the petitioner is aware about the entire proceedings of the Tribunal as he himself has received notice as early as on 2-8-1979 in which, the date of further hearing has been specifically mentioned as 20-8-1979. If this is the case, the petitioner now cannot say that he came to know about the order only in the year 2002. The reasoning assigned by the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the host of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in series of matters. It is the duty cast on the litigant to explain each day’s delay in approaching this Court. Therefore, by following the ratio of the well-settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
15. The writ petition is liable to be rejected on yet another ground of suppression of material facts. The petitioner knowing fully well having ‘ received the notice as early as on 2-8-1979 has intentionally and deliberately suppressed this vital material records available on the file and the case made out before this Court in the present case is that there is no notice as such was issued by the Tribunal which is contrary to the material on records. Therefore, on the ground of suppression of material facts also, the writ petition is to be rejected.
16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter as stated above and also by taking into consideration the totality of the case, I do not find any error of law or irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The interference by this Court with the impugned order at this instance of time is unwarranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
The Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within 4 weeks.