L GEETHA Vs. THASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner along with one K.M. Sriramaiah jointly filed M.A. (VOA) No. 6 of 2007 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, invoking Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, calling in question the order in VOA.CR. 19/84-85, dated 28-10-2006 of the Tahsildar-respondent 1 herein directing re-grant of land measuring 3 Acres in Sy. No. 82 of Kodlahalli Village, Koratagere Taluk, in favour of the second respondent, treating the land as Shanbhog inam. It is useful to mention the relationship of the parties. The father of the first petitioner by name K.L. Narayana Rao and the father of the second respondent by name K. Shamarao, were brothers while petitioners 2 to 8 are the children of one KM. Sriramaiah, the purchaser of the said land under a sale deed dated 24-4-1992 executed by Padmavathamma, widow of K.L. Narayana Rao.

(2.) M.A. (VOA) No. 6 of 2007 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge was made over for further hearing to the Fast Track Court-V, Madhugiri. During the pendency of that appeal, KM. Sriramaiah was reported to have died on 19-2-2008 following which, I.A. Nos. IV to VI to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased, to condone the delay and to set aside the abatement were filed on 5-9-2008. The proceeding sheet maintained by the Fast Track Court discloses that time was extended for filing objections to the said applications by the respondents, none other than the respondents in this petition. However, on 30-10-2009, the Fast Track Court without noticing the pendency of I.A. Nos. IV to VI, dismissed the appeal for default i.e., for not taking the steps pursuant to the death of appellant 2 i.e., KM. Sriramaiah.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel, Miscellaneous No. 100 of 2009 was filed before the District Judge at Tumkur, which was made over to the Fast Track Court and was dismissed by order dated 6-2-2010 on the premise that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. Thereafterwards, MFA No. 3339 of 2010 filed before this Court, was dismissed by order dated 17-7-2012, as not maintainable, reserving liberty to pursue any other remedy as is available under law. Hence this petition.