Judgment :- 1The order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore dated 18.12.1998 as per Annexure-T is in challenge. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.95/1 measuring 3 acres 28 guntas of Kowdenahalli village, K R Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The petitioner challenges the order mainly on the ground of violation of Rule 43 of the Karnataka land Reforms Rules and violation of principles of natural justice by not bringing the legal representatives of the owner as parties. The owner of the land in question whose name found a place in the R.T.C by name Kukkala Muniswamy, who died even prior to passing of the said order. Hence the legal representatives of Sri Kukkala Muniswamy, the petitioner Smt.Venkatamma or their son the petitioner No.1(a) were not brought on record. The procedural safeguard provided under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Rules have been violated. Hence the learned counsel submits that the order in question is liable to be set aside. 2. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon decisions in ILR 2002 KAR 3722 (Smt.Muniakkayyamma Vs., Smt.Hanumakka & others) as it is held, by virtue of operation of Section 44 land vests with the Government is unsustainable since even today the land stands in the name of Kukkala Muniswamy and thereafter in the name of his legal heirs. The finding of the Tribunal that the land vests with the Government for the purpose of Section 44 of the Act is an error since to rebut the same, the legal representatives of Sri Kukkala Muniswamy were not brought on record. Hence on the face of it, the order is an error and liable to be set aside. The Tribunal further committed an error in relying upon the findings recorded in earlier proceedings for passing the order which is impermissible. The Land Tribunal should have recorded findings afresh. The date was fixed for spot inspection but not held. No prior notice for spot inspection has been given to the petitioner. Even after the death of original owner Kukkala Muniswamy, proceedings continued in his name and his L.Rs. were not brought on record. In similar circumstances, this Court in 1978(2) KLJ 41 held that the proceedings against a dead person is violation and it is impermissible. No prior notice for spot inspection has been given to the petitioner. Even after the death of original owner Kukkala Muniswamy, proceedings continued in his name and his L.Rs. were not brought on record. In similar circumstances, this Court in 1978(2) KLJ 41 held that the proceedings against a dead person is violation and it is impermissible. The notice issued to the legal representatives of Kukkala Muniswamy returned with refusal shara, but actually there was no refusal of the notice by the petitioner/s. It is submitted that the petitioner knew about the proceedings itself is insufficient to hold that the notice is complied. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in Sushil Kumar Sabharwal vs., Gurpreet singh & others 3. The order of the Land Tribunal was of the year 1998 and the delay and latches in filing this petition, the sufficient reasons have been stated in the petition. In addition, I.A. for additional grounds has been filed on 4.11.2008 in which it has been stated that wife of Kukkala Muniswamy by name Smt.Venkatamma was seriously ill and suffering from heart ailment and thereafter she died and in this engagement of taking care of his mother, the delay has taken place. In the circumstances, the delay cannot be viewed seriously. Annexure-J to J11 have been produced in support of his sub mission namely, mother of the petitioner was ill. The notice issued to the petitioner/s, which bears an endorsement `refused' is also produced as Annexzure-K. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel relied upon (2002) 5 SCC 377 (Sushil Kumar Sabharwal vs., Gurpreet singh & others} where it has been held that a refusal of the defendant to accept the summons, process server's failure to affix a copy of the summons on the wall of the premises and the instant his returning the summons to the court with an endorsement on the back about the defendant's refusal amounted to non service of summons. It is submitted, when it is stated by the defendant that notice and summons not issued, ordinarily court of fact should have believed the defendant's statement. ILR 2002 KAR 3722 (Smt.Muniakkayyamma vs., Smt.Hanumakka), where it has been held that affixture cannot straight away be invoked on refusal of notice by parties without exhausting the other modes of service. 4. It is submitted, when it is stated by the defendant that notice and summons not issued, ordinarily court of fact should have believed the defendant's statement. ILR 2002 KAR 3722 (Smt.Muniakkayyamma vs., Smt.Hanumakka), where it has been held that affixture cannot straight away be invoked on refusal of notice by parties without exhausting the other modes of service. 4. The learned counsel further referred (1998) 8 SCC 685 (State of U.P & others vs., Raj Bahadur Singh & another), in order to substantiate his submission that once the matter is admitted, the limitation aspect cannot be looked into. There is no time limit for filing a writ petition. All that the High court has to see is whether the latches on the part of the petitioner are such as to disentitle him to reliefs claimed by him. It is observed, the High Court appears to have examined the matter as if it was a case under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned counsel also relies upon (2006) 5 KLJ 425 (S Shivalingaiah vs., State of Karnataka & others), where it is held, in a matter where grave injustice is likely to occur, it would be travesty of justice to condone the delay in such cases, and sought for condonation of delay. 5. The learned counsel relies upon (2008) 5 KLJ 514 (Smt.Devaki & others vs., State of Karnataka & others) and submits that opportunity was not given to the contesting party amounting to gross violation of principles of natural justice. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents R3© to R3(f) submitted to dismiss this petition on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts which amounts to approaching the Court with unclean hands. After the death of Kukkala Muniswamy, both his wife Smt.Venkatamma and his son Srinivas, the present petitioner herein, did approach the Tribunal on all the occasions for about 12 hearing dates from 3.3.1993 to 16.10.1994. The order of the Land Tribunal was challenged in W P No.15851/81 and the same was disposed of on 28.11.1983. As a result, the case was reopened on 02.09.1988. The Land Tribunal decided to issue notice to the parties and the matter was adjourned on 21.10.1988. Till 17.4.1989 for about 5-6 occasions, none appeared for the parties. The order of the Land Tribunal was challenged in W P No.15851/81 and the same was disposed of on 28.11.1983. As a result, the case was reopened on 02.09.1988. The Land Tribunal decided to issue notice to the parties and the matter was adjourned on 21.10.1988. Till 17.4.1989 for about 5-6 occasions, none appeared for the parties. However on 1.8.1992 the present petitioner appeared on behalf of the respondent, since the original respondent before the Land Tribunal, Sri Kukkala Muniswamy died and prayed for time and at his request the case was posted to 21.8.1992. On the next date of hearing, himself has made a statement to the Tribunal that Kukkala Muniswamy died 3 years back and sought time to file L.Rs. application and again the case was adjourned to 11.9.1992. On the next occasion, on 03.03.1993 he made appearance and on 02.02.1994 he made applications with a prayer for permission to come on record as L.R. of Kukkala Muniswamy and accordingly the said application was allowed. On 05.08.1994 the petitioner, Srinivas made application along with G.P.A wherein wife of Kukkala Muniswamy authorized the present petitioner to appear on behalf of the respondent. However, it was recorded in the order sheet on 16.10.1998 that the respondents have not appeared despite several adjournments and respondent's evidence has been considered and it was posted for spot inspection on 23.10.1998. Thereafter before pronouncing this order, a notice was issued as it is produced by the petitioner as per Annexure-E, and the same was refused. Hence the Land Tribunal proceeded to pass final orders. Hence, there is no error committed by the Land Tribunal. 7. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner suppressed the material facts and approached this Court with unclean hands. When appearance has been made on behalf of Kukkala Muniswamy as legal heirs and on more than 12 occasions he represented, thereafter what made this petitioner to state that he was not issued notice and not appeared. Violation of principles of natural justice has not been substantiated. That itself is a suppression of material facts amounts to approaching this Court with unclean hands disentitling him to any reliefs. 8. Violation of principles of natural justice has not been substantiated. That itself is a suppression of material facts amounts to approaching this Court with unclean hands disentitling him to any reliefs. 8. It is submitted that the third respondent had filed O S No.3737/2004 against one Venkatappa who was causing interference in peaceful possession of the land in which a written statement has been filed by the petitioner and for the purpose of notice, the petitioner states that summons issued in the said suit was the date of knowledge, itself cannot be accepted. The petitioner has attempted to explain the delay suppressing the material facts of his representing before the Land Tribunal. 9. It is further submitted, the Land Tribunal disposed of the matter by conferring occupancy rights in 1998 whereas the petitioner filed additional grounds by producing medical documents as Annexures-J series. Annexure-J1 does not bear the date for the purpose of consideration. Annexure-J2 is Ecocardiography report issued by the Manipal Heart Foundation. However, this report is a regular and formal report which discloses ‘normal’ result. Like this, all the medical documents up to J11, they are all normal, not disclosing any serious ailment as such to mother of the petitioner. By referring Annexure-J7 the learned counsel submits with regard to heart examination which reports that `image not for diagnosis'. Moreover, this is on 26.6.2002 after the order of the Land Tribunal. That means to say, there was no ailment or such a serious suffering to mother of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the attempt made by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay and latches is not properly substantiated and it is only an attempt made to misguide this Court. Accordingly, he submitted to dismiss the writ petition. 10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon various judgments contending that the petitioner has committed abuse of judicial process in approaching this Court. The learned counsel referred judgment in M/s.Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India reported in (2007) AIR SCW 5350 Para 35, wherein it is held that if there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 11. 11. The learned counsel further relied upon AIR 1970 SC 898 Para-37 (M/s.Tilokchand Motichand & others v. H B Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay & another), to contend that the laws aid the vigilant and not those who slumber. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon AIR 1970 SC 919 Para-21, (The Delhi Cloth 7 General Mills Co., Ltd., etc., v. The Workmen & others etc.,) where it is observed as follows: "21....It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art.226 can be measured. This court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable.." 13. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon (2010) 2 SCC 114 Para-7 (Dalip Singh vs., State of Uttar Pradesh & others) wherein after following (2007) 8 SCC 449 , it is stated that if the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 14. And lastly the learned counsel relied upon AIR 2010 SC 2210 (Manohar Lal (D) by L.Rs. v. Ugrasen (D) by L.Rs. & Others, in which relevant portion in Para-47 reads as follows: "47....When a person approaches a Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. "Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice". W ho seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim "Jure naturaw aequum est neminum cum alterius detriment et injuria fiery locupletiorem", means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another." 15. The learned Additional Government Advocate supports the order passed by the Land Tribunal. He also made available the original L.C.R. 16. The legal maxim "Jure naturaw aequum est neminum cum alterius detriment et injuria fiery locupletiorem", means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another." 15. The learned Additional Government Advocate supports the order passed by the Land Tribunal. He also made available the original L.C.R. 16. The main grounds of challenge to the order passed by the Land Tribunal is not issuing notice by bringing the legal representatives of the owner Kukkala Muniswamy. The said ground has been examined in the light of the order sheet produced by the respondent. While examining each and every dates of the proceedings recorded, it is seen that even before issuance of notice after knowing about pendency of the case, the petitioner and his mother approached the Tribunal and they have stated that they are legal representatives of deceased Kukkala Muniswamy and the same has been taken on record and on number of occasions referred above, both the petitioner and his mother appeared and the petitioner has submitted the G.P.A. executed by the mother, the same was also taken on record. This itself is sufficient to show that the petitioner has represented his case and he has participated in full extent and at no stretch of imagination it could be stated that the petitioners were denied an opportunity. On an earlier occasion, the writ petition was allowed in which after seeing some irregularities, the order was set aside and matter was remanded for fresh consideration. This also further goes to prove that the remand order was within the knowledge of the petitioner since they appeared before this Court. The order of the Land Tribunal was passed in December, 1998. When such being the case, the contention taken by the petitioner that they came to know the order of the Tribunal on receiving court summons in the suit referred to above itself is a false statement made to this Court, which has to be taken serious note of. A person who approaches the Court, he should approach with clean hands without suppressing any material facts. If it is found that the person has approached the court with unclean hands and suppressed the material facts, it disentitles him an equatorial and extraordinary discretionary remedy. A person who approaches the Court, he should approach with clean hands without suppressing any material facts. If it is found that the person has approached the court with unclean hands and suppressed the material facts, it disentitles him an equatorial and extraordinary discretionary remedy. This is one of such case where after participation in the proceedings of the Tribunal, the petitioner has taken flimsy and illusory grounds that notice has not been served, which cannot be accepted. This conduct on the part of the petitioner disentitles him for any relief. 17. Whenever a party approaches the Court and there is a bona fide reason for the delay, courts would normally condone the said delay in order to meet the ends of justice. The power under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution is to find out whether parties' fundamental or statutory right has been deprived or denied by the statutory authorities. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached the Court after lapse of about six years. The petitioner has stated that wife of Kukkala Muniswamy was suffering from heart ailment and petitioner was looking after his ailing mother which resulted in filing the writ petition belatedly. On the other hand, the medical documents produced in the case showed normal and routine check up and there was no serious health problem as such. Even otherwise the medical documents are much prior to the date on which the impugned order was passed by the Land Tribunal and some are after the date of the order. The knowledge of the order is stated by receiving the suit notice, which is also false because the petitioner had already participated in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner has clearly attempted to misguide this Court approaching with unclean hands. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2007) AIR SCW 5350 held in Para-35 that "In our judgment, the submission of the respondent Bank is well founded that appellant is not entitled to ask for extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India". Though Article 226 does not limit a person to approach the Court by prescribing limitation, but the aggrieved should approach within a reasonable time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the above decisions that suppression of facts disentitles a person from claiming any relief. Though Article 226 does not limit a person to approach the Court by prescribing limitation, but the aggrieved should approach within a reasonable time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the above decisions that suppression of facts disentitles a person from claiming any relief. The laws aid the vigilant and not those who slumber and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dealt with as to how much period of limitation is to be employed in writ proceedings. 18. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (2010) 2 SCC 114 Paras 1 & 2 that the materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 19. In view of the above reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner has utterly failed to make out any case to condone the delay and he has suppressed the material facts before this Court and there is no reason to hold that there is violation of principles of natural justice by the Land Tribunal while passing the impugned order or there is procedural irregularity. The reasons sought to assign to condone the delay are false and cannot be countenanced. 20. Further, this is a third round of litigation in the matter. Earlier the Land Tribunal had rejected the claim for grant of occupancy rights which was set aside by this Court and matter was remanded for fresh consideration in W P No.5649/80 disposed of on 2.6.1980. By the order dated 21.4.1981 once again the Land Tribunal rejected the claim for grant of occupancy rights and thereupon the applicant filed W P No.15851/1981 which came to be disposed of by this Court on 28.11.1983 directing disposal of the matter afresh. 21. After remand, the Land Tribunal recorded the statement of the applicant and his witnesses. By the order dated 21.4.1981 once again the Land Tribunal rejected the claim for grant of occupancy rights and thereupon the applicant filed W P No.15851/1981 which came to be disposed of by this Court on 28.11.1983 directing disposal of the matter afresh. 21. After remand, the Land Tribunal recorded the statement of the applicant and his witnesses. The Land Tribunal has also taken into consideration the two agreements dated 31.5.1961 and 11.5.1966 and examined the same with reference to the oral evidence of the witnesses who have deposed that the applicant has been in possession and enjoyment and concluded that the applicant was the tenant in possession and cultivation as on 1.3.1974 and thereafter and accordingly granted the occupancy rights. It is also mentioned in the order that the petitioner and his mother appeared before the Land Tribunal on 2.2.1992 and made application to bring them on record as L.Rs. Even though the notice was sent to them, they refused to accept the notice. The Land Tribunal has also mentioned that the land owners though knew the proceedings were absent on 29.7.1998, 30.7.1998, 12.8.1998, 27.8.1998, 3.9.1998, 8.9.1998, 23.9.1989, 29.9.1998, 6.10.1998, 6.10.1998, 16.10.1998, 23.10.1998, 4.11.1998, 9.11.1998, 17.11.1998, 21.11.1998, 27.11.1998, 8.12.1998 and 18.12.1998. The petitioner after having appeared before the Land Tribunal remained absent on the subsequent dates and refused notice, thereby lost the opportunity sought to be extended to them. In the circumstances, the Land Tribunal had no option but to consider the available materials, scrutinized the same and concluded that the applicant was the tenant in occupation and cultivation and accordingly granted the occupancy rights to him. 22. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the Land Tribunal has passed a considered order assigned sufficient reasons to arrive at a conclusion as to the tenancy issue and granted occupancy rights by the impugned order. The said considered order do not calls for interference by this Court. 23. In the result and for the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.