GOWDARA PAPAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) sri umakanth learned govt. Advocate represents respondents 1 and 2- respondents 5 to 7(a) and (b) are represented by a counsel. Respondent no.4 though served is absent and unrepresented.

(2.) as the petition can be disposedof on a short ground it is heard for final disposal.

(3.) this civil petition is preferredagainst the order dated 9th may, 1988 passed by the land reforms appellate authority, chitradurga on i.a. nos. I and iii to v Filed in l.r.a. No. 213 of 1986. I.a. No. I is filed by respondents 5 to 7(a) and 7(b) herein seeking permission to come on record as the legal representatives of deceased respondent no 3 jannenahalli appaiah. I.a. nos. Ill to v are filed by the petitioner herein who was the appellant before the land reforms appellate authority. Out of these three applications viz., i.a. nos. Ill to v, one of them is for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased jannenahalli appaiah on record and another to condone the delay in filing the application and the third one is to set aside the abatement. As a matter of fact, as the legal representatives themselves came forward with an application to bring them on record, the land reforms appellate authority should have allowed that application and permitted them to come on record without entering into unnecessary controversy. However, the land reforms appellate authority has chosen to reject the applications on the grounds that the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3 was filed by the petitioner who was the appellant before it, beyond a period of 30 days prescribed under Rule 10(7) of the Karnataka land reforms appellate authority rules, 1986 (for short 'the rules') and that the Provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings before the land reforms appellate authority.