Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 220 (KAR)

Manjappa v. State of Karnataka

2010-02-19

A.S.PACHHAPURE, N.K.PATIL

body2010
JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J : These five appellants assailing the correctness of the order impugned dated 22/11/2006 passed in W.P. 40033/1995, by the learned Single Judge, have presented this appeal. 2. The grievance made out by the appellants herein in the instant appeal is that, they have filed a W.P. 40033/1995 questioning the correctness of the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Hirekerur, dated J6/02/1981 and directed the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the claim of appellants for grant of occupancy rights on the ground that they have filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 160/1 measuring 16 guntas, Sy. No. 160/3-4 measuring 3 acres 17 guntas, Sy. No. 162/3-4-5 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas, Sy. No. 162/7 measuring 14 guntas and Sy. No. 160/9 measuring 23 guntas of Madlur village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District. 3. It is the case of appellants that, they were not aware of the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal in the year 1995. They came to know when the news was spread in that village and some of the lands cultivated by them, which were in dispute in the writ petition are being disposed of by the panchas in favour of the third parties. Immediately thereafter they approached to the Thasildar seeking for certified copy of the order and collecting other materials without any further delay they have contacted the Counsel in Bangalore and requested to file the writ petition assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in the year 1981 and the writ petition is filed in the year 1995. There is inordinate delay of more than 14 years in filing the writ petition. The said writ petition filed by the appellants herein had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge. After hearing both the parties through their respective Counsel for a considerable length of time and after evaluation of the original records threadbare it is not in dispute that the appellants have appeared before the Land Tribunal personally on 31/12/ 1980 and signed the order sheet. Thereafter again on 05/02/1981 they appeared before the Tribunal and signed the order sheet and they have also appeared before the 3rd respondent and signed the order sheet, which is crystal clear in AnnexureR.2. Thereafter again on 05/02/1981 they appeared before the Tribunal and signed the order sheet and they have also appeared before the 3rd respondent and signed the order sheet, which is crystal clear in AnnexureR.2. Taking all these relevant factors into consideration, the learned Single Judge without accepting the delay explained by the petitioners has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches and also on the ground of suppression of material facts. Being aggrieved by the order impugned, the appellants herein have felt necessitated to file the appeal and have claimed appropriate relief as stated supra. 4. This matter has been taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for appellants at the outset submitted that, he is not disputing the presence of the appellants before the Tribunal signing the order sheet and participating in the proceedings. But however he vehemently submitted that they did I\C lave sufficient opportunity to substantiate their case that they are tenants in respect of the land in question and they are entitled for grant of occupancy rights. This aspect of the matter has not been accepted nor appreciated nor considered. Therefore, the appellants are constrained to redress their grievances by filing the appeal. 6. As against this, the Counsel appearing for contesting respondent learned AGA, interalia, contended that, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the relevant records available on the file as on the date of passing the order and there is inordinate delay of more than 14 years for redressing their grievances contending that they do not have the knowledge of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in the year 1981 and seeking direction and issuing of mandamus to the 2nd respondent to consider their application for grant of occupancy rights and to decide the matter. 7. The appellants have not approached the Court with clean hands and have not stated the truth. Therefore, the writ appeal filed by the appellants may be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and also on the ground of suppression of materials facts with exemplary costs. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent for a considerable length of time. Therefore, the writ appeal filed by the appellants may be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and also on the ground of suppression of materials facts with exemplary costs. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent for a considerable length of time. After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error of law, much less any material irregularity, nor has resulted in any miscarriage of justice against the appellants in dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merits. It is significant to note at the outset that the learned Counsel Sri. K.G. Shanthappa, who is appearing for the appellants in the instant case after verifying the records, it is not the dispute that the appellants have appeared before the Tribunal on 31/12/1980 participated in the proceedings and also they have duly signed the order sheet and thereafter again they appeared before Tribunal on 05/02/1981. They have appeared before the Land Tribunal and signed the order sheet. Further it emerges from the records that these appellants have appeared and 3rd respondent has signed the order sheet as produced at Annexure-R.2. Thereafter the revenue records have been transferred on 15/03/1981 against the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner referred to above the appellants had made a statement that they have not filed as to what has happened to their application seeking grant of occupancy rights since the panchas requested them not to pursue the matter. All these materials available on the file establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants have participated in the proceedings of the Land Tribunal and they were well aware of the matter. This matter has not been whispered or stated or they have not approached the Court with clean hands nor stated the true facts. 9. Further it has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge about the participation of these appellants in the proceedings, which is crystal clear from the orders passed at Annexure-R.2, 3 and 4 and R.5. The Assistant ommissioner clearly recorded the finding of fact holding that the appellants are not in possession of the said lands. It is further not in dispute that there is inordinate delay of more than 14 years and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained nor assigned any cogent valid reason. The Assistant ommissioner clearly recorded the finding of fact holding that the appellants are not in possession of the said lands. It is further not in dispute that there is inordinate delay of more than 14 years and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained nor assigned any cogent valid reason. Taking all these factors into consideration as stated supra, we are of the considered view that the writ appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed at threshold with exemplary costs, confirming the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. On the ground of delay and latches and also on the ground of suppression of material facts and also on merits, the appellants have not made out any case to consider their prayer sought in the appeal. Therefore we decline to entertain the relief sought in the appeal for the foregoing reasons. The instant appeal filed by appellants is dismissed as devoid of merits with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 10. The appellants No.1 to 5 are herein directed to pay the costs as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of 8 weeks as requested by the learned Counsel appearing for appellant, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the 13th respondent-Manager. If the said cost is not paid within 8 weeks to the 13th respondent Manager, he is permitted to recover the said amount in accordance with law.