MAHADEVAPPA Vs. SADASHIVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsels representing the contesting parties as also the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3 on merits.

(2.) THE interesting issue that has been rather vehemently debated in this appeal centres around the aspect as to what is the duty of a judicial forum in the face of a delay condonation application. In this case, we refrain from saying a single word about the merits of the case as we would be required to remand the present proceeding to KAT and consequently, the appeal would still have to be heard on merits, and secondly, we are informed that a writ petition is pending wherein the vesting of land in the State has been challenged and in the light of this position, any observations by the Division Bench would have a far-reaching consequence to one or the other of the parties.

(3.) THE appellant is an ex-serviceman and he states that, according to him, the lands in dispute were being cultivated by his family and that, consequently, under normal circumstances, they would have been eligible for grant of occupancy rights. We qualify that this is the case of the appellant because, the contesting respondent has something else to say with regard to the factual position. The appellant further contends that since the application for grant of occupancy rights was not made, that the lands vested in the State. The appellant was an ex-serviceman, who was seriously injured and handicapped while in service, and according to him, he applied to the Government for grant of those very lands which came to be granted to him by order dated 18-2-1991. The appellant contends that after close to five years (4 years 10 months and 19 days to be exact), respondent 1 filed an appeal before the KAT being Appeal No. 117 of 1996, challenging the grant and in this appeal, he filed I. A. No. 2 for condonation of delay. The Tribunal, at paragraph 10 of its order, has observed as follows: