Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1059 (KAR)

P. Akkanagamma v. State of Karnataka

2003-12-15

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2003
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.--In the impugned order at Annexure-B dated 4.1.1982 occupancy rights were granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of deceased Respondent in respect of 8-07 acres of land in Sy. No. 173/KA of K. Veerapura Village. After the death of 3rd Respondent, his legal representatives are arrayed as parties. Despite that, I.A.I of 2002 is filed seeking to implead the applicants as Respondents 6 and 7. The applicants state that deceased 3rd Respondent executed Will in favour of the father of the applicants bequeathing certain properties, which include the aforementioned land also. Hence, they claim that they are necessary and proper parties. 2. The applicants are claiming right over the land on the basis of the Will. They have to prove the execution of the Will in a competent Civil Court. This Court cannot determine their right under the Will in writ proceedings. Hence, I.A.I of 2002 is rejected. 3. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons: a) Admittedly, the land belonged to one S. Veerana Gouda. He sold the land in favour of Adhoni Constructions on 14.8.1963. This fact is suppressed in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of facts. b) The Petitioners being the legal representatives of deceased S. Veerana Gouda, have no right whatsoever over the land in question since it was sold way back in the year 1963. Consequently, they have no locus standi to file this writ petition. c) The order impugned in this writ petition was passed in the year 1982 whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 2002, after a lapse of 20 years. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches also. d) The plea of the Petitioners that they had no knowledge of the impugned order and that they came to know about it only in the last week of February, 2002, cannot be accepted. Petitioners filed applications before the Tasildar on 16.7.1976 and 17.9.1986 wherein reference is made to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Assuming that Petitioners had no knowledge of the impugned order, since they have no right over the land, they are not entitled to any relief. e) S. Veerana Gouda was very much alive until his death on 24.9.2001. Petitioners filed applications before the Tasildar on 16.7.1976 and 17.9.1986 wherein reference is made to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Assuming that Petitioners had no knowledge of the impugned order, since they have no right over the land, they are not entitled to any relief. e) S. Veerana Gouda was very much alive until his death on 24.9.2001. He has not challenged the impugned order during his life time, quite naturally because he sold the land in the year 1963 itself. f) Right of the tenant is settled long ago and the same cannot be disturbed at this juncture. 4. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners upon the various decisions of this Court will not be helpful to them as the land was sold long ago. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.