ERAMMA Vs. CHIKKAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common question of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this order. Petitioners having filed applications for regrant of land attached to the village office of Kulavadi Service Inam under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short 'KVOA' Act), led to forwarding papers by Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, to the Tahsildar, for necessary enquiry and orders thereon. It appears that the Tahsildar passed order dated 20.06.2000 and 27.06.2000 regranting portions of land in survey Nos. 32, 74 and 58 of Kamadihalli village, in favour of Hanumavva, W/o. Anandaiah -appellant in M.A. (VOA) No. 29/2004; Nagaiah, S/o. Lakkaiah(respondent No. 3), Chikkamma W/o. Siddaiah (respondent No. 1) and Eramma W/o. Siddaiah (appellant) in M.A. (VOA) No. 28/2004; and Javaraiah S/o. Ningaiah and also the husband of Hombalamma -appellant in M.A. (VOA) No. 27/2004.

(2.) HOMBALAMMA W/o. late Javaraiah S/o. Ningaiah, filed M.A. (VOA) No. 27/2004, Eramma, W/o. Siddaiah filed M.A. (VOA) No. 28/2004, while Hanumavva W/o. Anandaiah filed M.A. (VOA) No. 29/2004 along with the application I.A. No. 1 in each of the appeals to condone the delay in preferring the appeals under section 3(2) of the KVOA Act. The District Judge, by orders of even date 15.12.2007, rejected I.A. No. 1 is each of the appeals, on the premise that the appellants affixed either their signatures or thumb impressions on the order dated 19.6.2000 in each of their cases, found in the record of the Tahsildar and sequentially, appeals were dismissed. Hence, these petitions.

(3.) THE discretion to condone the delay like any other judicial discretion must be exercised with vigilance and circumspection, according to justice, commonsense, and sound judgment. The discretion is to know through law, what is just. The words "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice, when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputed to the applicant, is the well established principle.