IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
OATEO THIS THE 28"' DAY OF JANUARY,
BEFORE
THE HON'BE_E MR. JUSTICE AsHoIge. HInIe':»IIi:;ERI:: ,1 "
WRIT PETITION No.2285o/zoos.i;'LR.)"
BETWEEN: V % V
Smt. Minala Bai,
W/o Late Purushothama Naicftg,
Aged about 80 years, ~
R/at No.137, MM Road, ._
Frazer Town, '
Bangalore -- 560 00,5» Petitioner
"S III. agjaih ,_ {Io ca te)
AND:
1. The State of KarVn'atja~ka',-~..I_
Representedttbvy the Se"c.re_;tary,
Revenue De'pa'rtment,"-
Vid..h§--anat'~Soudha'--,._ _
' Ba'ng:;a|o'i<e '=--<_560 001";
2. t *;" Then rfbss ,
Anekal Ta.l'_LI.k;A'T;=Anekal.
Sri'.4Bala'Vran*Iaiah,
S/o subbaiah,
'_=.,Aged about 80 years,
" _Ne,q_i g1e Village,
if-Varjapura Hobli,
__Afnekal Taluk.
Respondents
(By Sri Ramachandra R. Naik, HCGP for R1 and R2)
This writ petition is filed under Articies 226 and 227__of the
Constitution of India praying to cail for the entire recordsfo”ng the
file of the R2, in Case No.LRF.ATC/1565/1975-76 in r.e’s;jecti.VVof
the land bearing Sy.No.108 measuring 5 acres situated.4at.i\i-e,rigg’ag
etc.
This writ petition coming on tor:;’JPre:I’i’ni.iVn’ary’ I-{earVi.nVg”V”t_hiVs
day, the court made the foilowing: ”
0 R V
The petitioner has ca;_li’ed inAt.o.ldxque’stig’onitttiieaorgdler, dated
11.11.1998 granting the occ’uoa«nc*,{_viiig.nts-Wclihihgivrespect of the land
measuring 5 acres at Sarjapura
Hobti, Anekai Tajltiicvign the t’hird ‘resoondent.
2. This%”Cou»titV_vby”¥’§its dated 26.10.2009 has passed
the fo|Eowin9zl0rd’erV: ‘ it ‘
”_C0nsidei’ing’»that”-the.re is delay in approaching
I seer»-no«’reason to issue notice to the
2 » .fes=pondent at this stage before being satisfied
frdinll recdrds of the Land Tribunal that the
not have opportunity before the
‘_ 4′ Tribunai; V
” * «falowever, the learned Government Advocate to
l’ =ai:cept notice for respondent No.1 and 2 and secure
the records from the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taiuk,
‘Anekal. ”
8
Viliage, Sarjapura I-iobii, Anekal Tatuk, Bangaiore_.’-Dist’ri”ctgj;’*–.ai’i–rj
Tribunal. Advocate namely, Sri Vishwanath had filed val<a_i_.ath on
her behalf on 3.9.1997. The said advocate has conteste'd.:"the
proceedings.
6. The perusal of the L.C,R.s
order is not an exparte order. ,A_dequate’V-opportuni’ties”;vvelre:’g
indeed given to the petitioner to r’e’si.s”f:’ the respondent
No.3. When she was reprvejsentetjtihiyiiadvocatelyi she cannot
plead unawareness of the order, that
too for a long periodfgof order was
passed in 1998 years thereafter. I
therefore rejegtlthvisi’ of delay and Iaches
without expressing any opinion’o~:1:A”the’merits of the case.
7. Noiordier as to” costs,
safe
Iudee