HANUMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) SRI .Venkappa fourth respondent herein f iled an appeal in RTS/AP -87/2011 -12 before the third respondent chal lenging the order passed by the Tahasi ldar, Mudhol , dated 14.12.1998 in case No.RTS/SR -16/98 -99 which has the effect of changing the measurement of the property in question. The appeal was f i led on 8.12.2011. There was a delay of 14 years in fi ling the appeal. Therefore, the fourth respondent f i led an appl ication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. Without considering the appl ication, the third respondent has allowed the appeal and set aside the order impugned therein. The petitioner chal lenged the said order by f i ling a revision petition before the second respondent in case No.RTS/Re -1/2012 -13. The second respondent by his order at Annexure -D dated 30.05.2013 has dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has cal led in question the val idity of the said order in this writ petition.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a long delay of 14 years in f i ling the appeal before the third respondent chal lenging the order of the Tahsi ldar dated 14.12.1998. An appl ication seeking condonation of delay was f i led in the said appeal. Without condoning the delay, the third respondent has allowed the appeal. The appeal was invalid. Therefore, the question of considering the appeal on merit does not arise. The Revisional Authority has confirmed the said order as per the order at Annexure -D, which is again contrary to law.