_ 1 W
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAZKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26?" DAY OF NOVEMBER. 20
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE B.S. PAJIIL 4.11:". --D T" D
WP.No.5842/2008; (LI,¢fRESl 1' D' 'Q' 4
BETWEEN:
Sri N .Satyanarayana,
S/0 late Narasegowda,
Aged about 68 years,
Agriculturist, . '
R/0 Devarasanahalli, _ 1 as "
Nanjanagud Taluk, Mysore [)ist."j" 'PETITIONER
[By Sri ShiVas\A(a1a_x:{,':'£\dv:;_)
AND: D D D
1. The S'ta"i"(: --of"3:arn§;1taakaa,»
Depafrtrru-.n't of VRevenu;3j - .
M.S.B"uilding, _K.R;Ci"r'Cle;..,. ll
Bangalor_e¥560 '00 _
By its Secretary. '
. A2. Laiid _Tr1'b{ina.]_,__... »
V" . Nanjahgudefaluk,
' V.VNanjanagw_:1 Taluk, Mysore Dist,
By its.Seeretarfy.
3.
Since deceased by his L.Rs.
Sn' Nanjaiah 8/ 0 late Rangaiah,
A'S1'r_1uce dead by his L.Rs.
fi(a] Smt.Rukkamrna, W/0 late Nanjaiah,
_f(b) Sri Srinivasa, S / 0 late Nanjaiah,
' (0) Sri Narayana, S / 0 late Nanjaiah.
(d) Sri Mahadeva, S/0 late Nanjaiah,
(e) Sri Rangaswamy, S/0 late Nanjaiah,
_2__
(f) Smt.Bharathi, D/o late Nanjaiah,
(g) Smt.Sun1a1atha, D/ o late Nanjaiah,
Respondents 3(a) to 3[g) are majors,
All are r/o Shankarapura, Nanjangud *
Town and Taluk, Mysore District.
(By Sri R.KuInar, HCGP for R1 8: 2,
Sri Nfihankaranarayana Bhat, for R_3.(a_–_e],
R3(f 8: g]– served & unrepresented] ‘ ‘
This writ petition is fi1edll_u–nderll’Artic1es -227 of’
the Constitution of India prayinvguto call lorirecords from the
respondent No.2 in respect of”landj”‘a_ear1ngVV”‘Sy.No.1215/1
measuring an extent of’ 2,05’g__acresl’situated at Nanjangud
Village, Nan] angud. Talulg, .i’.v’£ys:c1r§._IQisti’i.c1;, etc.
This ‘..OI:l’v’fOI” Preliminary I-Iear1’ng«B
Group this day, VCot’.rt«..ni’a_del:lthe followingw
A ggttiigls§_RDER
1. This _peti_tio_r:1 “i:sll}filed challenging the order dated
10.07.2002 passe’d_.ll3iy the Land Tribunal in LRF No.1 /1974–75,
3. vide. Annexurez~GV.
2. .__li’etitjoner*lclaims to be the owner of the property bearing
“.,__V_4l~Sy.NO.12l5./1 measuring 3 acres 23 guntas situated at
‘Nanjarigud Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore
By the irnpugned order, the Tribunal has granted
uukoccupancy rights in favour of 31″” respondent Rangaiah who is
… 3 _
since dead and is represented in this proceedings by his lega}
representatives respondents ~ 3(a) to 3[g).
3. There is an inordinate delay of six years in a.ppre.aChing
this Court.. The order of the Tribunal is passedpii
Whereas the writ petition is filed o.n”0él.04._–2’008:.l’_’:vE7i$§iplanait-ivongy
offered for such a long and inordiri’ate*iV de.lay_l’isl t’l”nat’?1./_on
03.07.2002, the case was set on
day, the matter was again adjourned_ by for orders
to 10.07.2002. Howevenifon the case was not
called out in theopen made by the
petitioner with the”‘i’rtbunal revealed that
the petitioner the next date of hearing by
issuing “noticed ‘;”he1a.ee’- …jt£-1e petitioner was waiting for
intimation from the “i.’1*ib–.unal. However, later, to his shock and
‘~ ._petitioner—-learnt about the passing of the order. It
‘His the*V’=eoV11tention of the petitioner that as the Tribunal
did’ not eornnit:.n’icate the order passed by it and as he came to
‘ ‘know of. order only in the year 2007 when the respondents
0’ ll..tr:’edlltoy dispossess him from the land in question, he was able
I Qfgoltakél Steps to file this writ petition in the year 2008.
, 4 W
4. This explanation offered by the petitioner is unacceptable
to condone the delay of nearly six years in approach-irig this
Court. The proceeding sheet maintained by the is
produced at AnneXure–F. As can be seen –fr’orn.._ti1e’t 4_
proceedings dated 03.07.2002 record’ed–,by both’;
the petitioner and the respondents presentlyv
Tribunal. Their counsel sought_V:l”or_ time’ to argue case and
hence the matter was adjo1.irn’ed”‘~~.to On
10.07.2002, when the the petitioner and
the respondents’_\>m’.re lthleir counsel were
present and__i1q has been passed
and on 10.07.2002. This
being the gexplanatgi-on offered by the petitioner in
paragraph-1 contendingthe matter was again adjourned
on 10.;0’i’.2002 he was informed by the Tribunal that
h’eai’iTr1″g_._date in the matter would be intimated to him is
Atctally piricorrvect«:”Petitioner has come up with such incorrect
statement’ ‘to_*’suit his purpose. At any rate, he cannot be
e:;pected*td keep quiet for six long years to know the result of
_his’casee.
This is not a case where the petitioner was not at all
notified and all the proceedings were carried on behind his
at
A 5 H
back. Apparently, he has participated in the proceedings by
engaging a counsel. The order is pronounced in the open Court
in the presence of his couI1se.1.. Therefore, there is no “re:as_on for
this Court to condone such inordinate delay in
Court. Hence, the Writ petition is dismissed. ~ , .. L”
. ‘ 1
PKS I 1