1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29"" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N 5 _
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI 'O: O T
W.A. No. E649/'2009*-- (K1, )
BETWEEN
Smt.Prema1atha V Malli,
W /0.1ate K Vittala Ma11i',=._
Aged about 71 years, A '
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/a.PadmaVath_i N.iVas_',' _ -
Nittegutthu, "
Karkala Ta1uP:'.«;4eVc1 80 years,
. R/a;A;r1riadi, Miyaru village,
Ka'r'};.al'a Taluk, Udupi District.
S1T1T.Sundari Sheclthi,
V "/0.1ate Hliriyanna Shetty.
V' -7Ag<-rd about 55 years,
R/a.Miya1'u village,
Karkala Taluk, Udupi If)ist'z'ici.
"J
3. Sri Gopal Shetty.
S /olate Hiriyanna. Shetty.
Aged about 53 years.
R/a.I\/iiyam viiiage,
Karkala Taluk, Udupi District.
4. Smt.Sugur1a Shedthi.
D /0.1ate Hiriyanna Shetty,
Aged about 50 years,
R/a.MiyaruVi11age, _ ' *
Karkala Taiuk, Udupi District. ' 'A
5. Smt.Jayanthi Shedthi.
D /o.1ate Hiriyanna Shetty...
Aged about 48 yegws, A
R/a.i\/[iyaru Vi11e~.ge";..
Karkala Taluk, Ud'upi- I3i.sfi.»ri.et f_ _
6. The Land Tribunal, _ ,_ .
Rep. by
Kerkaia E{gii=l§aia. --
Udupi Dis[rifet.t * '
7. The State, of Kariiataika.
Rep. by its 'Secretary,
_~ ' rtmeiit: «0.f..Reven11e,
- _ Buildiiig,
--,Ba__iig2i1m'e--.--_56O 001. .. Respondents
(I3y?s141 M’eiVifshwa1aath, AGA for R6 & R7)
“‘1.’.his is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
Viligh Cortirt Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order
V~.Afds,te’ci~«.24.2.2OO9 in CF’ KLRA No.2/2008.
This W.A. coming on for orders this day, KUMAR J
J’
_,/
~deIivered the foilowing: /”‘
x
1
JUD(}l\/iEN’i’
This writ. appeal is preferred challenging the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. who has
entertain the civil petition on the ground of .
years and 5 months in preferring .t,he._s’am_e..l “‘:'” . ‘4
The petitioner filed a writ
order passed by the Landll.’lfiilouna’l
granting occupancy righf in .I-Ii.riyan.nal§Shetty.
By virtue of the amelndnient ut:h:evrA’.fV:K:3.rnataka Land
Reforms Act,_ 1. came to be
transfelrrecl’ to Appellate Authority.
However. petitior:.er,/Qafppellant did not appear before
}Xut«.h_Q_1_fii:y. Since it is nearly 17 years 5
n1i.oi’iths.,__she-fp1’eferred the civil petition before this Court
c:om’plai11i1ig_ of violation of principles of natural justice.
‘salt is in those circumstances, learned Single Judge, after
‘~.ff(:.avre’ful consideration of the cause shown. Came to the
Cfi’J§I1Cl11SiOI1 that the reason for condonation. of delay
E
L2
4
does not evoke the confidence of the Court and rejected
the Civil petition. We have perused the mat.eria_1__ on
record and do not find any reason to condone
of 17′ years 5 months in filing the civil .
appe11ar1t./ petitioner has no inter-est’-111
matter. Even after she was gaotifteo
notified, she Could not 5 ‘V
months to find out the fate oflhnej1tt’ig’ation’.”=’I’}’ierefore,
it is clear that she lost she did not
bother about Cj:–1se§._ InLithosevt’_eireaig’nstances, we do
not find _ entertain the appeal.
Accordingly’; the dismissed.
AA V. 35;;
.. ….. ..
saga?
moss