RAMAKKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in M.A. No. 77/05 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Bangalore is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 12.3.2009 -Annexure -B rejecting I.A. to condone the delay of ten months in filing the appeal under sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 15.1.2005 in case No. HOA. 109/98 -99 of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk directing re -grant in respect of 3 acres 24 guntas of land in Pillaganahalli village of Bangalore South Taluk in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Petitioner asserted that the Tahsildar reserved the case for orders and its pronouncement on 5.12.2003, but thereafter, without notice to the petitioner, pronounced the order on 15.1.2005. This, according to the petitioner, was the cause for not having the knowledge of the order pronounced by the Tahsildar on 15.1.2005 and therefore the delay of ten months in filing the appeal.

(2.) IF this is the cause, the District Judge failed to apply his mind to the said cause and hence has occasioned grave injustice to the petitioner, by rejecting the application for condonation of delay. In the circumstances, what is material is not the date on which the petitioner came to know of the order but the fact that the Tahsildar had not informed the petitioner of the date of pronouncement of the order that is 15.1.2005 after having reserved for orders on 5.12.2003. It is not known whether the very same Tahsildar passed the order or somebody else.