K BANGARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is delay of 110 days in filing the appeal. Seeking condonation, Misc. W. No. 405 of 2009 has been filed.

(2.) We have heard the Learned Counsel on merits of the appeal. Since we find that, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected, it is unnecessary to order notice on Misc. W. No. 405 of 2009 to respondents. Since, appeal itself being liable to be rejected as devoid of merit, it is unnecessary to consider and allow Misc. W. No. 405 of 2009.

(3.) Appellant-K. Bangarappa, had filed the writ petition for quashing an order dated 30-1-2003 (Annexure-D) passed by the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Soraba, granting occupancy rights to respondent 3. Said person claims to be having interest in the property, by virtue of agreement of sale dated 2-3-1969 (Annexure-A) between himself and the respondent 4. He had opposed the claim for grant of occupancy rights. Land Tribunal after holding an enquiry, had conferred occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent, which was questioned in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, after noticing the fact that, the writ petitioner is only an agreement holder and has no locus standi to maintain the petition. However, it has been clarified that, if there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the property, he is at liberty to get the land surveyed and identified and project his interest. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred.