VENKATARAMANA TEMPLE Vs. SUBRAYA HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is taken up for hearing. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

(2.) A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that on account of inordinate delay in approaching the Court, the writ petition was dismissed. In the very opening part of the impugned order, it is stated that the writ petition was filed in the year 1995 challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 16/10/1981. In the operative portion of the order, the learned Single Judge observed that "It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was aware of the order that was passed and the petition filed fourteen years after the impugned order of the Land Tribunal does not deserve to be entertained. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay and laches."

(3.) We are of the opinion that the view adopted by the learned Single Judge was clearly justified in the facts of the case. It is useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS vs T.T.MURALI BABU wherein, at paragraph 16, it is observed thus: