MUNIAKKAYYAMMA Vs. HANUMAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is represented by Sri N. Raveendra Reddy, whereas the contesting respondent 1 is represented by Sri T. H. Chikkavenkategowda. The respondent 2-Land Tribunal and the respondent 3-State are represented by the learned Government Pleader, Sri Bychappa.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Reddy had taken me through the impugned order under challenge, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition. It was his submission that in filing the instant writ petition, his party had challenged the impugned order on the ground that his party had not been served with the notice earlier to passing of the impugned order. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal could sustain in law.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, Sri chikkavenkategowda supported the impugned order. It was his argument that the Land Tribunal was forced to pass the impugned order for a good reason that the petitioner had refused to receive the notice that came to be issued by the respondent 2-Land Tribunal and it was in the said circumstances the Land Tribunal had passed the impugned order. Yet another line of argument of Sri Chikkavenkategowda was that the impugned order came to be passed as early as on 21-9-1981, whereas the petitioner herein had filed the instant writ petition as late as on 12-4-1999. Therefore, according to him, viewed from any angle, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal has to be confirmed by this Court.