HAJI B UNNI SULAIMAN Vs. BEEPATHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to be the owner of non-agricultural punja land measuring 14 cents in Barya Village of Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, having acquired right, title and interest, under a settlement deed Annexure A registered as document No. 138/1977-78 of Book-1 Volume 439 at Pages 196 to 200 dated 10-08-1977 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bantwal, aggrieved by the order dated 24-07-1981 Annexure-"c" of the Land Tribunal in Case No. LRY 115/74-75, in so far as it relates to the grant of occupancy rights over land measuring 14 cents in Sy. No. 75/5 in favour of the 1st respondent, has presented this petition on 15-07-2002.

(2.) IN the order impugned, respondent-landlord is shown as Sri. Saralikatte, Jumma Masjid, Thekkar Village. The Land Tribunal having held an enquiry into the vesting as well as the claim of tenancy on the basis of the declaration filed by Respondent No. 1, recorded a finding of fact that the declarant was a lawful tenant of the lands in question under the landlord and granted the occupancy rights over Sy. No. 75/5 measuring 14 cents amongst other properties. But, this Writ Petition is filed after an inordinate delay of 20 years alleging that neither the mother of the petitioner nor the petitioner was made a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal though they are the owners of the property in question.

(3.) THE explanation for the delay in filing this Writ petition is set out in Paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The material particulars such as the date when the petitioner came to know of the order, the date of application, the date of receipt of the order impugned, etc. , is wanting and hence the explanation is as bald as can be. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Form No. 10 the certificate of registration under Section 55 (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was granted to the 1st respondent in the year 1981 and the name of the 1st respondent was substituted in all revenue records relating to Sy. No. 75/5. It is not the case of the petitioner that the revenue records relating to the said survey number were substituted into his name after the execution and registration of the deed of settlement Annexure-"a". The explanation offered is deficient and does not constitute sufficient cause for every days delay. The Writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and latches.