VITHOBA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the first prayer is to quash the application in Form 7 at Annexure-C. An application filed seeking occupancy rights cannot be quashed in writ proceedings. Hence the prayer is rejected.

(2.) THE second prayer is to quash the order at Annexure-D passed by the Land Tribunal registering the 3rd respondent as occupant of the land. The order is dated 29-11-1978. But the writ petition is filed in the year 2000, after a lapse of 22 years. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the inordinate delay and laches in approaching this Court.

(3.) THE delay in approaching this Court is sought to be justified by stating that petitioner had no knowledge of the impugned order. The legal representatives of deceased 3rd respondent have filed counter pointing-out that the petitioner is the son of 4th respondent and the adopted son of the landlady Thippavva who gave power of attorney to the 4th respondent to prosecute and defend her and he had admitted the tenancy. It is further stated that O S No. 114/95 was filed by the petitioner for a declaration that the land in question was not vested in the Government and the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights. It is further stated in the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose in the month of December 1993 itself. The copy of the plaint produced as Annexure-R5 reveals that in paragraph 5 the petitioner had stated that he was working as coolie in Goa and Mharasthra in the year 1992 when the return to the village, he came to know that the lands were standing in the name of the tenant. These factors amply prove that the petitioner had the knowledge of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Hence, it cannot be believed that he had no knowledge of the same.