NEELAKANTH PUNNAPPA HALABHAVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, questioning the impugned order date 1st January 1993 bearing No. KLR SR Girigaon 3 on the file of the land Tribunal, Chikodi vide Annexure A in respect of land bearing No. 41/4 measuring 02 acres 02 guntas situate at Girigaon village, chikodi Taluk, has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) ONE Smt. Laxmi Bai Girigouda Patil has filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 41/4 measuring 02 acres 02 guntas situate at Girigaon village. Chikodi Taluk. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 22nd January 1982, has rejected to grant the occupancy rights in favour of the applicant, Smt. Laxmibai. Being aggrieved by the said order, she assailed the said order before this Court by filing Writ Petition no. 20437/1982 and the said writ petition filed by her was allowed and the order passed by land Tribunal was set aside by this Court by its order dated 18th January 1984 in respect of the land in question with a direction to the land Tribunal to dispose of the application filed by Smt. Laxmibai, after holding fresh enquiry in compliance with Rule 17 of the karnataka Land Reforms Rules. After remand, the Land Tribunal took up the matter for re-consideration and registered the occupancy rights in favour of Smt. Laxmibai by its order dated 1st January 1993. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner herein has presented the instant writ petition contending that, the order passed by the Land Tribunal suffers from illegality and arbitrariness for the reason that, as per Section 48-A of the karnataka Land Revenue Act, service of individual notice on the owner is mandatory and the said requirement has not been complied with. It is the case of petitioner that, the Land tribunal has not issued any notice to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is liable to be set aside in view of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Further it is contended in the petition that, the land in question is a temple property and that, petitioner being the wahivatdar of the said temple property and is also cultivating the said land personally, the land Tribunal ought to have afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned. On the other hand, the Land Tribunal, without notice to the petitioner, has proceeded to register the occupancy rights in favour of deceased Laxmibai, represented by respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, it is petitioner's case that, without any justification and without any relevant material, the land Tribunal has registered the occupancy rights in favour of deceased Smt. Laxmibai. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned order passed by Land Tribunal is just and proper and that, no error or illegality as such has been committed in passing the impugned order. Further, he submitted that, the impugned order passed by Land Tribunal is as early as in the year 1993 and the instant writ petition is presented on 8th April 2003, after lapse of a decade. Therefore, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed on merits as well as on delay and laches.