AMMAYYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assails the validity and legality of the impugned order dated 10-1-1962 passed in No. 29/59-60 on the file of the Special Deputy commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, and consequently, the order dated 17-11-2000 vide Annexure-F passed in Appeal No. 418 of 1999 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate tribunal.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that she purchased the suit schedule land in question on 22-6-1959. In view of the amendment to the inams Abolition Act, Mysore and the Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act,. 1954, she filed application for grant of land. The said application filed by the petitioner had come up before the second respondent on 10-1-1962. The second respondent after considering the material on record has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that all the lands are vested in the Government with effect from 1-2-1959 whereas, the petitioner has purchased the lands in question on 22-6-1959. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent dated 10-1-1962, petitioner filed appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 418 of 1999. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the Counsels for both the parties and after considering the material on records and after scrutinising the entire original records available on file has dismissed the said appeal, as barred by time by its order dated 17-11-2000. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the second respondent and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent being a poor illiterate rustic villager, she was not aware about the order passed by the second respondent. She came to know only when the notice was issued by the KLADB on the ground that lands have been notified and acquired for public purpose. Immediately thereafter, she contacted Advocate and enquired about the matter and obtained the certified copy of the order and filed appeal before the KAT. Further, he vehemently submitted that she had no notice, as such issued before passing the impugned order by the second respondent. The second respondent has proceeded without following the provisions under the Act and this matter is not at all taken into consideration by the KAT. The tribunal has dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the said delay has not been explained satisfactorily. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no bar on the part of the petitioner for not challenging the order from the date of knowledge. The said order has been challenged before the Appellate Tribunal within a reasonable time. Therefore, the said delay has not been intentional or deliberate but for bona fide reason and that she is an ignorant and rustic villager and she does not have the knowledge of legal implications. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that the impugned order passed by the deputy Commissioner and Tribunal are liable to be set aside.