S Sadashiva Rao vs Seshi Sapaliga D/O Late Mundappa … on 22 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
S Sadashiva Rao vs Seshi Sapaliga D/O Late Mundappa … on 22 September, 2008
Author: H.Billappa


4. Aggrieved by that the petitioner has

mtition.

5. in brief, the facts are, the

though survey Nc:.92l1B of Tenke. wee
not claimed, occupancy [fights and
therefore, the impugned in iaw and
therefore, .<

that the occupancy rights in
respect "tags/2 and 135123 of Badaga

Yedapadevu \tiiLi'a,%g%e, Tfibumi has granted occupancy

efeuniey' No.92/18 of Tenka Yedapadavu

1'. aisu.,:_e:1d.'jf?terefere, the impugned order cannot be

7, . iftsshvagainst this, the teamed eounset for the first

"submitted that the impugned order has been

in the year 1981 and the petitioner has approached

.'4ufi&fi§S'C0Url in the year 2005 and therefore, there is inordinate

L/

delay of nearly 24 years in approaching this

therefore, the writ petition cannot be bAelf;terta1§ried.:'fHe":elm ll

submitted that the Tribunal based on:'»the:1's§.:ivey._.le§o§i;"

granted 55 cents of land in Véuasgey V"No'.'9?J1££,:"Of._':«Tenl;:a l

Yedapadavu village and therefore,__4_iffse__ie1pugfi'e§l_ does

Gag. Or mfiweelearned Govemmeritl' Pieedeaf' supported the

impugned order.

9. l flue submission made

by the learned §~,6;j’.-eel_fAAior’

1G_._ li:_et’~.–erises for my consideration is,

” wh_eth.¢f”:theA.§mpugfiAed erder calls for interference?

‘ lfelggavant to note, vlde Annexure~’A’, the Land

: Tritlnjhel-has. occupancy rights, in favour of the first

–_’r_e3pondei’l1:._.A’ln respect of Sy.Nos.155i1B_, 15512 and 92113 of

4′ 35;jggej’A”A.’Yedapadavu and Tenka Yedapadavu village. The

‘ order has been passed in the year 1981 and the

l/

writ petition has been filed in the year 2005. ~
inordinate delay of nearly 24 years in approachlijgfisisv
The father of the petitioner has; “”p’z’iitiel;1zat@:A1:in_
proceedings, but, he has not chaliengec’i..tli’ezimpiig’iio§d
Theygyzx, after his death, aherthe #4
pamoruer has approached thiseitsouli, clearly after
thought. No doubt Annexure.–*e* claim in
respect of survey Village, but
the Tribunal has granted

occupancy rights my.’ considered view, the

impugned erder-doesl – There is no
in thihgwrii it is iiable to be dismissed

Sd/E-3
Fudge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *