MOODABIDRI GURUGALA BASADI Vs. ANANTARAJA INDIRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this civil petition in the year 2006 being aggrieved by the order dated 24-7-1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Karkala, in Case No. TRL. 1702.80-81. The relevant facts of the case are that respondent 1 had filed Form 7 seeking grant of occupancy rights of land bearing Sy. No. 53/4B measuring 64 Cents in Pranthya Village, Karkala Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, on the enforcement of the amendments made to Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Before the Tribunal, one B. Nagakumara Shetty and Charukeerthi Pandithacharyavarya Swami, Administrator of Pashwarnathadevara Bhandara, were arrayed as respondents. The latter, which is a Mutt/Basadi is the petitioner in this civil petition. Before the Land Tribunal, the Mutt/Basadi was represented by one Sri Bhaskar Bhat, who is since deceased. By order dated 24-7-1981, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of 64 cents in Sy. No. 53/4B. That order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No. 21916 of 1982. After the constitution of the Appellate Authority, this Court transmitted the case to the Appellate Authority. In 1990, the Appellate Authority was abolished and 90 days time was granted to the appellants therein to seek transfer of the appeal to this Court by filing of a civil petition. The petitioner herein has filed this civil petition on 18-11-2006 i.e., after a period of sixteen years after the abolition of the Appellate Authority and application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the civil petition.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, who appears for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the material on record as well as the original records.

(3.) The facts narrated above are not at all in dispute. Admittedly, the civil petition is filed after a period of sixteen years after the abolition of the Appellate Authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken pains to convince the Court that the petitioner is a Mutt/Basadi and that one Bhaskar Bhat was looking after the affairs of the Mutt. He was also in-charge of accounts and legal proceedings pertaining to the Mutt and that he died and thereafter, the present Swamiji took over as the head of the Mutt and the present Swamiji had no knowledge about the affairs of Mutt/Basadi much less about the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority when he took over and also the requirement of filing of a civil petition before this Court so as to seek transmission of the appeal from the Appellate Authority to this Court and that the delay of 16 years in filing the civil petition is due to bona fide reasons, which may be condoned. That the petitioner has a good case on merits and therefore, due to ignorance and not having knowledge about the proceedings, the civil petition could not be filed at an earlier point of time. This was compounded by the fact that Bhaskar Bhat, who was in-charge of the affairs of the Mutt/Basadi had died and therefore, the delay in filing the civil petition may be condoned.