RAMAPPA LACHCHAPPA LAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate, respondent's learned Advocate and the learned Govt. Advocate.

(2.) ). The petitioner has disputed the validity of an order passed by the Tribunal in the year 1982 through a petition filed in the year 1997. In paragraph 7 of the petition, an averment has been made to the effect that the petitioners family was represented by Ramappa Latchappa Lamani who was effectively the Manager or Kartha and that he had not discussed or informed the remaining members of the family about the proceedings in question. According to the petitioners, it was only in the year 1997 when their possession was sought to be disturbed, that they came to know of the order of 1982, and that they obtained copies and have challenged the same. Effectively, the petitioners' are trying to overcome the long delay in approaching the Court on the ground that they were not aware of the proceedings.

(3.) THE respondents are represented and the main contesting respondent R-3 has opposed the grant of any relief. According to him, the Tribunal had earlier passed an order in the year 1979 which was challenged by the respondent in writ petition No. 3524 of 1981. This Court remanded the proceedings to the Tribunal on 2-3-1981 and the Tribunal after holding a fresh enquiry passed an order on 20-11-1982 in favour of the applicant. The R-3 has pointed out to this Court that the subsequent formalities have been completed in so far as the requisite payments have been made, form No. 10 has been issued and the changes in the mutation have been effected in the year 1983. All these documents have been produced before the Court and the submission canvassed is that this Court should not permit any re-opening of the proceedings which have assumed finality in the year 1983 itself.