AKKI VIRUBHADRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24-10-1979 in Case No. 686 of 1976 (Annexure-F) passed by the 2nd respondent has presented this writ petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of Sy. Nos. 12 and 13 measuring 8. 55 acres and 22. 62 acres respectively situated at bukkasagar. He is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. Be that as it may. The 3rd respondent herein claiming to be the tenant has filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 4 acres 27 guntas in Sy. No. 12 and 11 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No. 13 on 20-12-1976. The said application was registered. The Land Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on records granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent by its order dated 24-10-1979. The Land Tribunal held that the petitioner himself has filed form 11 declaring his total holdings of the lands. In the said declaration, the petitioner has shown the 3rd respondent as the tenant to an extent of 4 acres 27 guntas and 11 acres 31 guntas in Sy. Nos. 12 and 13 of Bukkasagar Village. The Land Tribunal has granted the occupancy rights holding that when the landowner himself has declared in his form 11 that the 3rd respondent is the tenant of the lands in question, after issuing notice and after publishing the same and affixing the notices at the village panchayat office has granted the occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 24-10-1979, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for respondent 3 and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Further, he submitted that there is no delay in filing the writ petition as the petitioner came to know about the impugned order when he has received notice on 19-7-2002 informing that he must be present in the land for fixing boundary of the said land by the Survey Department. Therefore, he submitted that the delay is not intentional or deliberate and it is for bona fide reasons. If the said delay is not condoned the petitioner will be put to great hardship and inconvenience and it cannot be compensated by any other means. If the delay is condoned no hardship will be caused to the 3rd respondent. He has submitted that there is no enquiry as such, was conducted by the Tribunal as envisaged under rules 16 and 17 of the Land Reforms Rules. He has specifically pointed out that, sub-clause (2) of Rule 17 has not at all considered by the tribunal, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated and concluded by the Tribunal is vitiated and it is liable to be set aside.