LOUIS VEIGUS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are sons of late Legori Veigus. They have assailed order dated 1-7-2011 passed in TNC No. 7135/1974-75 passed by the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Bantwal (Annexure-A), with regard to the land bearing Sy. No. 154/2B2 at Navoor Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, measuring 2.70 acres. Petitioners have also assailed order dated 12-8-1980 passed in TNC No. 3984/74-75, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B. A direction is sought against the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, to consider the claim of the petitioners' father in Form 7, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. At the outset, it is noticed that the order dated 12-8-1980 (Annexure-B) is one made as against the petitioners in respect of an application Form 7 (Annexure-C) filed by father of the petitioners. So far as that order is concerned, it is noticed that the petitioners' father, who had participated in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, did not choose to assail that order during his lifetime. It is only after 33 years that the petitioners as the children of the original declarant, have sought to assail that order. There is no explanation, whatsoever, for approaching this Court after this length of time. Therefore, the writ petitions insofar as it assails the orders dated 12-8-1980 (Annexure-B), is rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

(2.) In this context, a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue regarding delay and as to how a Court of equity exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot extend its hands to such persons who approach the Court after several years can be relied upon. In fact, the Apex Court has held in several decisions that stale claims ought not to be entertained by High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The recent decisions in that regard are as follows:

(3.) Insofar as, order dated 1-7-2011 (Annexure-A) is concerned, that is an order made by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to respondent 3. By that order occupancy rights have been granted to respondent 3 on the basis of Form 7 filed by the father of respondent 3, a copy of which is produced as at Annexure-D. The petitioners could not have assailed the order dated 1-7-2011 as well as order dated 12-8-1980 by filing this single memorandum of writ petition.