1 IN TEE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED rm mm mm may or szprnnmm was mnsmrr THE Hownm 1m..m's*rIcE vnopam 1% % AND mm I-ION'BLE 2m.JUS'l'ICE K.N.IG3SH1&VA;IIAgRx§'v'1f&.Vt§A:'«' w1u'rAPPEALNo.382 20@$% . - 2 % BE'I'W%N: 1. Smt.Rathna W/o.Sri Gevinda ._ 13/ 0.1ate ven1<aPI3a Naika R/a.chennibettu,,Yel1arc. ' Yellarc Village 311:1 Posfgi ' ' Udupi Iijist'; ' ' 2. Smt.Girija _ " V W/0,311 Thanzzixayya, Naika V' R] a;Bb11_m1arbetu ' V _ Via. H£1*iadka," 'Panchanabettu Post "=Ud:.1pi Dist. .. ..Appcl1ants K.Prasanna Shetty, Adv.) ' :ThcL "of Karnataka __ by its Secretary __ :tC2._Goverm11ent of Karnataka V' Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha ~ " Bangalore 560 001. Land Tribtma] Karkala Taluk Udupi (D). 3. Smtjvlanorama Pai W/o.1ate Ramanath Pai 4. Sri Ganesh Pei S / o.late Ramanath Pai 5. Sri Vasanth Pai S / o.1ate Ramanath Pai Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are V
Residing at Kaduhole, Mamie Village’-.. V
M1.miyal(P), Karkala (T) ._
Udupi (D). L”.-Respondents .5
(By Sri H.M.Manjunati:;,.AeAk.i¢r}2e1end 2)
This Writ Appeal of the
Karnataka High praying m.set..aside the order
passed in the ‘vPetit;i.pn lf~ie.29922/94 dated
18.2.2005. M
– for Pheliminaxy
hearing, Gepeja -J.’;.gielivered the followingw
for the appellant on the
tleleyileft V10TA_iv’E2e s__._ The delay is sought to be explained
V in the reasons at Paragraphs 5 and 6
efthe ewom to by the appellant in support of
,e :%.A[§which, reads thus:
“5.. I submit: that earlier our father
= V. not contested the matter before the
learned Single Judge in WP No.29922/94
and we eaxne to know the order of the
Hon’b1e High Court only when we received a
notice from the offioe of the Village
\\.\L/
Accountant, Yellare Village, Karkala Taluk in
R.R.’1′.C.R: 86/07-08. Immediately we
contacted our local advocate in Karkala and
after verification it is found that the
respondents herein have filed a writ petitio;ii”‘ « ..–. ”
before this Hozfbie Court and in that writ ”
petition Hon’b1e High Court was pleased.. «
quash the order of the land tribuJ1a1’_<dated'v '.
16.9.1981 by the order dated
submit that I and my sister both' are residi.rf1g.. : V
in remote area and we axe-t__i1IiteI'*ete" andwe
have no knowledge of the~,o'rder passed H
this Hon'b1e Court dated 1'st2.2oo5i'in_WP 2
No.29922/94. — –
6. I submit tI1at.s_’beii1″g:”awa.re~w. or the
above said fact We mad,e_ ‘enquir1es’.bei’ore the
Tahsildar Karkala Qabouts the-“_o_rVd’ei?’ of the
High ‘If1her1.VweI_came~.to Vkiiow that
petitioner,” V’ ‘ajppiieatiot1…befo1*e the
Tahsildar –..foi?.. c:11angei..ofv .khatt1a} on the basis
of !i11c”0i’fi_€}IT; ofthe H.o33’bie”‘I’iig’h Court. The
copy; of application . filed by the 4th
respondent’ for ~e”hat:ge–.oi’._k1iata in his name
is enclosed, herewith as _Annexure~c.
‘vexplanation is not a tenable
the long delay of filing this Appeal
vieiwfloi’ that damn’ g the pendency of the writ
« d.i.i’_;’~..petition, respondents 3 to 5 filed LR application to bring
of deceased origh a} tenant who was first
V. V’ in the writ petition. That application came to
allowed vide onzier dated 7.8.2003. The appellants
have brought on record and they were served in the writ
\.\_/
4
petition but remained unrepresented. Therefore, they
are required to explain the delay of 1076 days in filing
this appeal. By reading the explanation offered in
affidavit at paragaphs 5 and 6 in 4′ ~
application cannot be accepted as t_h6}’,_§lI’6 hot’
in law and therefore, on this *3
liable to be dismissed.
3. Apart from the above iire.haveV3alse
examined the findings T by the
learned Single Judge on also after
considexixzefgll ” vv_contentions. The learned
Single Jt1d.gVe.__Wi_t11′ ”t5 the claim’ made in the
writ ofrespeiidems 3 to 5 has examined the
a of fact stating that the Land
-~ respondent herein has ganted
kVV’eecupa’n.cy in favour of the appellants herein in
l uoflthe land bearing Sy.Nos.92 and 95 of Yellare
Tq though there is no claim in respect
it these lands in Form No.7. Hence the learned Single
lllliidge is perfectly justified in quashjng the order of the
\\N/
Land Tribunal gantjng occupancy rights in respect of
aforesaid two lands in favour of the tenants.
4. We am in respectful ageement with <
taken by the learned Single Judge 'n1attc,:1f.for–
reason that the Tribunal should V'
occupancy rights in respect of £51:
reason that it had no fiié
and want the occupancy 'tenants for
the reason that of the above
two Sy. Nos. fie'. Vappeal is devoid
Cfmefit _ …. _
5. The afipoal on merits also:
34/-5
.Tudg-*5
55/3}
I “ag*s