Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 825 (KAR)

B. L. PALANETRA @ VIRAKTHARADHYA v. KRISHNAPPA

2007-12-20

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2007
ORDER Gopala Gowda, J. By order dated 10/12/1999 LRRP.No.6116/1988 was allowed, orders passed by the Land Tribunal and appellate authority were set aside and the Tribunal was directed to register first respondent herein as tenant of Sy.No.9 of Bommanahalli village, Bhadravathi Taluk. This review petition is filed to review the said order. 2. The review petition is filed after a lapse of 2782 days. I.A.I/2007 is filed to condone the said delay. 3. The petitioners were not parties to the earlier proceedings. Hence, I.A.II/2007 is filed seeking Permission to prosecute this review petition. 4. So far as the inordinate delay of more than seven and half years is concerned, the only explanation offered is that petitioners came to know of the order only in September 2006. Except this, there is no other explanation. The explanation furnished is not convincing and acceptable. Hence I.A. I/2007 is liable to he rejected. 5. So far as Permission sought to prosecute the review petition is concerned, the review petitioners were not parties to any of the earlier proceedings, including the order sought to be reviewed. They claim title by virtue of advance possession through their vendor. There is no declaration to that effect by any Court. More over, the first respondent herein is declared as tenant of the land in question and direction was issued to the Land Tribunal to register him as such. Therefore, the petitioners have to locus-standi to file this review petition. The survey sketch produced as Annexure-E reveals that the petitioners have encroached upon the tenanted land. Therefore, they cannot seek review of the order passed by this Court. Hence, I.A. II/2007 is also liable to be rejected. 6. Since no relief was claimed against the petitioners and as they were not parties to any of the proceedings, the petitioners cannot maintain this review petition. If at all they have got any right title and interest over any portion of the land, they have to independently agitate and prove before the competent Civil Court. They cannot assert their claim of ownership in the proceedings initiated by third parties. More over, the matter has been concluded long back and the same cannot be re-opened at this juncture at the instance of the petitioners who were not parties to the proceedings. They cannot assert their claim of ownership in the proceedings initiated by third parties. More over, the matter has been concluded long back and the same cannot be re-opened at this juncture at the instance of the petitioners who were not parties to the proceedings. That apart, the claim put-forth by the petitioners is a disputed question of fact and law and the same cannot be determined in review petition without being a proper trial. The petitioners have to confine their ownership rights only to the extent of land purchased by them and not beyond that. Their claim that their vendors perfected title by adverse possession in respect of 33 guntas of land and the rights enjoyed by their vendor passed onto the petitioners, are imaginary and speculative. 7. Accordingly, IAs I & II /2007 are dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed both on the grounds of time barred and as not maintainable.