IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 8'" DAY OF MARCH, 20 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J CC " WRIT PETITION NO.8O726;.CMFC2O..v1_ IIIAAESI " J BETWEEN EANUBEE, W/O AHMED SAE, AGED ABOUT 50 5 R/O MADOIRI VILLAGE,» " I MANVI TALUK, RAICHUR DI5TRI.CT. C" ...PETITIONER (BY SR1" BASAREDOY, ADV.,) AND' ,I I 1' 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAIIA, BY,I_'1'S SECRETARY, " .REVENUE~I;)EPAR'rMENT. VIKASA 'SQUDHA, " ..BANOALOEE.--_i560 00 1. 2.' EHE COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR. I LAND TRIBUNAL, I _ BY ITS TAHASILDAR, Ix; MANVI, MANVI TALUK. MANVI, RAICHUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT WELFARE COMMITTEE, BY ITS SECRETARY. TIPU SULTAN ROAD. OPP. TO PRINCE FATHIMA COLLEGE. RAICHUR. 5. BANU BEE. W/O HASAN MOHINUDDIN. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. KHALEEL AHMAD. s/0 HASAN MOHINUDDIN. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. REPONDENT NOS.5 A1\i1:).6r I ARE R/OF WARD NO.21'7, I V' JAMNAL D0D,pI,._MANVIA,r . j. RAICHUR 'D.13STI§13?§i'T. I A ~ . [BY sm SHIVAK'E11y€.AR AGA) '"'*$***** A "i5ihi.s"1'*2;rrit pe't"ifior1 is filed under Articles 226 and »2.2'?Vofvthe«Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ Ofl._certi,Or_ariftokdirect the 31'" respondent to correct. the r'neasure1rier1i'£- of the land bearing Sy.No.247A [247] to th6*«._€Xf.€I1tv.:'Of 6 acres 8 guntas instead of 3 acres 30 gur1ta.s"in order bearing No. Ink 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12.613, 14, 15, 16. 17, 18, 19 and 20 of 1980-81 ~[_"r:1at"ed 29.11.1981 Vide Annexure B and ete., ...RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the foilowingz . ORDER
Sri Shivkumar Tingli, ‘directed, to”-Ttalzie
notice for the respondents. V
2. Petit1oner’s Khasim
Sab makes an appllcation ffior2.:_grai1tV:oi’occupancy rights
to an extent 6 Sy.No.247/A.
Pursuant to is produced at Anne2gaire' guntas was granted
in favour: This was in the year 1981.
Thejlresent petition is fiied to quash the order
“the Landlgfribunal in so far as the petitioner
to grant occupancy rights in respect of
the’-4.ent_ire ie, 6 acres 8 guntas. Obviously it is to
pnotieed that the original applicant Khasim Sab was
a_1ViVcA”as on the date when the order was passed by that?
/
.4/gr
Land Tribunal. In fact he has not chosen to question
the said order before this Court by way of a writ
petition. It is oniy after the death of Khasim Saphxpand
after the death of petitioner’s husband petitpigsnéejrt
to this Court by way of a writ petition. ‘ it ‘M ii
3. Having regard to the fact that. petitioner
questioned the order of the Land ;l7ri¥5ti_na2.’aiteif’V
nearly 29 years, I am of the4id’videv;rV_that’ question of
entertaining the Writ ‘petit’io_n géiivuéhi directing notice
to the respondent would izvtrit petition is
solelyiviliabie -on the ground of laches. A
perusal o’f__the also does not disclose as to
thefjcompeiiing’–reasons not to file this writ petition in
*theear1iest,:or___for that matter Khasini Sab to approach
the earliest point of time. I am of the View
that theduestion of entertaining this writ petition does
A ,riot”‘arise. Petition stands rejected.
4. Sr: Shivkumar Tingli, AGA is permfi:ted____to file
his memo of appearance within four weeks.
YKL/~