SADASHIVAIAH S/O LATE CHANNABASAIAH, SINCE DIED BY HIS L.RS. SMT. GURUSIDDAMMA Vs. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MALUR TALUK, MALUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND VENKATARAMANAPPA, S/O KURIGALA MUNISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants assailing the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 17558/2004 dated 12.11.2009 wherein the appellant had challenged the correctness of the order dated 13.9.1976 bearing case No. KHUR 13/74 -75 / LRF 370/74 -75 on the file of Land Tribunal, Malur granting occupancy right in favour of 2nd respondent in respect of Sy.No. 52/1 situated at Sonnappanahalli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, have presented this appeal. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased appellant Sadashivaiah claims to have been in possession of an extent of 18 guntas of land in Sy.No. 52/1 situated at Sonnappanahalli village, Malur Taluk. He further contended that the Land Tribunal by its order dated 13.9.1976 granted 7 guntas of land in Sy.No. 52/1 and another 11 guntas of land was granted by Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams) in the said survey number. In all 18 guntas. The deceased was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It appears that the father of 2nd respondent late Sri. Kurigaia Muniswamy has filed Form No. 7 for occupancy rights. The said application has come up for consideration before land Tribunal on 13.9.1976. The father of 2nd respondent was present before the Land Tribunal. The respondent owner one Sri.Narayan Murthachar was absent. Though the notice was served on one Bhesmachar who is none other than the son, he remained ex -parte and occupancy rights was registered in favour of the father of 2nd respondent subject to survey and measurement. It is the case of the appellants, who are the legal representatives of deceased that to occupancy rights an extent of 18 guntas of land in Sy. No. 52/1 has been registered in favour of the ancestor of the appellants and 7 guntas of land was granted by Land Tribunal and another 11 guntas of land granted by the Deputy Commissioner Inams without impleading the owner. Land Tribunal passed the ex -parte order without affording opportunity to the appellants and has registered the occupancy rights. The suit in O.S. No. 448/93 has been filed by 2nd respondent for permanent injunction against the appellants on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) Malur. Immediately thereafter, after contacting the learned Counsel who represented the parties, the appellants filed the writ petition assailing the correctness of the order passed by the land Tribunal. The said matter had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on dated 12.11.2009. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the order passed by the Land Tribunal is more than 30 years ago and it cannot be reopened by pointing out some errors in the order impugned and it cannot be a ground to consider their request after more than three decades and they have failed to challenge the order passed by the land Tribunal at an earlier stage. Accordingly, it was dismissed.

(2.) BEING Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal.

(3.) AS against this learned AGA appearing for R1 inter alia substantiated that the orders passed by the land Tribunal and also learned Single Judge submitted that the order of the Land Tribunal has been passed in the year 1976. There is an inordinate delay of more than 3 decades in assailing the correctness of the said order passed by the land Tribunal. Further, he specifically pointed out that the order passed by the land Tribunal dated 13.9.1976 was subject to Survey and Measurement. The appellants instead of making necessary application to survey the land and demarcate the boundary on the basis of the land granted in favour of the appellants on a mistaken notion has assailed the correctness of the order. Learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the proceedings is concluded for back 30 years ago and in these cases, there should be finality. He therefore submitted that interference by this Court at this stage is uncalled for.