VEEREGOWADA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL KANAKAPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. In the writ petition, challenge was to an order of the Land Tribunal dated 20-4-1999 (Annexure-L) conferring occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows.

(3.) Form 7 filed by Yediyurappa did not show the name of Veeregowda as the owner. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights. Writ petition was filed questioning the said order, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 17-9-1996, rejected the claim of Yediyurappa. Said order was questioned by the 3rd respondent in the then Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the appeal was registered as A.L.R.A. No. 867 of 1987. Since the Appellate Authority was abolished, C.P. No. 60 of 1990 was filed in this Court, which was allowed and the said appeal was converted and registered as W.P. No. 8613 of 1991, which was allowed on 4-7-1997 (Annexure-D). Said order was questioned by Veeregowda in W.A. No. 6167 of 1997, which was dismissed on 20-3-1997. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal proceeded with the enquiry and passed an order granting occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent on 20-4-1999 (Annexure-L). Veeregowda, questioned the said order in a writ petition, which upon consideration, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The death of Veeregowda was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appellants have filed LA. No. 3 of 2008 for condoning the delay in filing the application to come on record as the legal representatives of Veeregowda, LA. No. 4 of 2008 for setting aside the abatement and LA. No. 5 of 2008 to permit them to come on record and prosecute the appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to allow LA. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 2008. The legal representatives of the appellant Veeregowda, who have filed this appeal are permitted to prosecute the writ appeal.