IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, _
DATED THE 18'!' my OF JUNE x 713 %
BEFORE}:
THE H()N'BLE MR. JUsTic:~; %
wan' pnrrmou NO 9:' 19% 1 )
BETWEEN T
Sm'. MATH: BHAVA1*€I 2 ~ "
W/() M SHIVARAM£?L NFITETEQ .
R/A
HERGE POST'
UDI}'Pi"m.LIjK. ' A ' PETITIONER
(BY SR: : ADVOCATE)
% s:E'EI§,a POOJARY,' '
% S{ISiC;§3«I}¥?}'fi;D_ BY HIS ms
xa. - %éMTVI<A;r»m¥;A POC)JAR'I'HY
A.(__}ED~ mam 56 YEARS
% .15». SR1 .'A§§ANDA POOJARY,
» AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
17¢. gsm MUTHU POOJARY,
V QAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
id. SM'? KALYANI POOJARTHY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
"\
16.
if.
1%
% % - AREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SM'? SARASWATHY _
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS " " A
SMT VIMALA POO-JAI?I'HY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS'
SMT SUMATHI POQJARY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
ALL ARE CHII,DERNV_QI5._L)'\T I=§V POOJARY,
R/0 HERGAv:LLAr;E, 'PCS'I'..P.AR}{A.LA,
UDUPI TAI;Uiéj.£J\ID1«.I)I$TRI(?1f. K
THE II LANE) TRIB?jN1¥L,A_ A
BY
TALUK OP'FfI_(3E,'3V.V % %
UDUPI TA.LUK,j' £_I:3:}1'%!.._% _
THE STATE-OF-KAIQPJATAICA
VIBHANA SOUDHA'
5;;3;NQALVQRE"--w... .....
.. . RESPONDENTS
” (BY sR1 S;§*§i*YANARAYAN SINGH, HCGP FOR 122,123
SR1 I<:.M.NATARAJ FOR R1 (A TO (3))
911,39 PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED
21/9/1931 MADE IN CASE No. my 78–11~'I'RI 10490 BY
gm RESPONDENT.
% TRIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Reforms Rules. The deposition of the
recorded wherein he has “i:.'<3a£, iiwas AV
cultivating the Naflja land. In * 'not
given tenancy. Hence he
in 1977 (2) KLJ 395 egm '_ vséhether the
applicant is cultivating the case, the said
finding is not The second
judgment SCC 561 and submitted
that in it is a punja land them
shall be the applicant is cuitivating
the land inxque"stier1.V instant case, no finding has been
aiz§:ete"e{het1iei?"i;i1e respondent is eultivafing the land.
counsel for the respondent submitted
' " the petition is liable te be rejected mainly on the
igem: ii; delay in latches. fie submitted that impiigled
has been passed an 21 / 09/ 1981Whereas the petitioner
ii 3 "has taken a decade long time to challenge the impugned order
V and further he has not explained as to why there is a such
long delay in aPPI'eaching this court. Secondly}:
at the stage, the petition
person Seena Pujari. Seena is av_tiead
ago. This Court has directed ixuplead the
ms of the Seena Pujazfii-…_h£§11d bmught the LRS of
Seena Pujari aiterfl yeiarsl. was in
possession family members
of the the land and their
..entered in the revenue records
and even and cultivation of the
'– submitted by the learned counsel for the
in the impugned order at page No.2 it has
é Stateci by the land tribunal that " the petitioner has
that the respondent Seena Pujari is cultivating the
% A %%1afie%in the capacity of a tenant Hence there is no doubt in
respect of tenancy of Seena Pujari and the impugled order is
just and proper. 9%
6. I have heard the arguments made the
parties.
7. As it is submitted by the fi’:c_ .
in question is not a tenantcd
in favour of the respondsnt is i’£>r« ihc that
the petitioner himself at. _of his deposition
has dcpossd Eng: Paijafri was ctfltivatiilg the land on
VARA amiss miss was paying the rent in kind.
This show that there a tenant and
existed between the petitioner and
V further contention that the impugned
‘order i~’:ection 2(18)(34) of Land Reforms Act is not
flf(V)i13i.’.1d€:H(ii and accordingly same is rejected.
i 8. The secsnd submission of the petitioner counsel that
he has been denied an opportunity of cross-examination
which vielatcs Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules is also
“<.
cannot be considered for the reason that the
its order has recorded the state1:a1eiit”of
21/09] 1981 and in his statement iizade on “it
proves beyond all doubts that
was a tenant of the petiijoxi by the
petitioner that he was like ” 18 bags of
rice and Rs.30/sf’. ‘ to the punja land
there is no ftiiobjécoonsa made by the petitioner.
What is only that he has no
objections to” right in respect of nanja land
hiit he objecti=o3r1s_éii1 respect of punja land.
the petitioners submism’ons have been
V:fl__4co1f1sidea1cd”” 9:1’ merits he has to lose his case in View of the
and unexplained delay of 19 years. The order of
Tribunal was passed in the year 1981 which was
between the parties over a decade and under these
circumstances What was settled between the parties
ordinarily cannot be unsettled. Hence this court is hesitant
“<
in granting any relief to the pditioner in view' of '
inordinate unexplained delay. Hence
by the Petifioner are rejected. Writ petitiéia, = %
'L Bsv