LEO TAURO Vs. GRAGORY FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocates and the learned Govt. Advocate on behalf of R-4 and R-5 on merits. There are in all three orders that are the subject matter of this W. P. The first one concerns the order passed in the petitioner's own case wherein the Tribunal has granted him occupancy rights in respect of lesser areas than what was originally claimed. The other two orders are in respect of cases filed by R-1 and R-2 and the petitioner's grievance is that occupancy rights have been granted to R-1 and R-2 in respect of some areas which the petitioner had originally claimed and according to him right until the year 1990 he was not aware of the complications until R-1 and R-2 created certain disputes which necessitated the petitioner having to file O. S. 1070/1990 for an injunction. It was only in 1991 that the orders of 1977 have been challenged through the present petition and it is contended that due to the illiteracy and ignorance of the petitioner, the challenge has come at a latter stage. I do not dispute the fact that this Court has made a lot of allowance in genuine cases even after abnormal delays have taken place only in order to avoid the miscarriage of justice.

(2.) THE present case has a slightly different footing. Respondents learned advocate pointed out to me that the orders were passed in the year 1977, that all the three parties have been in possession of their respective areas and that those orders have become final. He also points out that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate additional claims which had been disallowed on the basis of any credible documentary evidence and that it is very clear, that the petitioner had over pitched his case in the trial instance.

(3.) I have considered the submissions canvassed by the petitioner's learned advocate and I do find that there are two insurmountable difficulties in the way of the petitioner, the first being that there is no credible conclusive evidence on the basis of which the petitioner would be able to sustain his claim in respect of the additional areas and secondly, that there does appear to be some substance in the respondents' contention that this W. P. was filed after the suit was instituted only in order to support that proceeding. In this view of the matter, this is one of the few cases in which this Court would have to decline to interfere, more so because the proceedings have assumed finality in the year 1977, the areas are relatively small and it would be against the interest of justice to disturb the position that has been continuing for the last more than two decades. Having regard to this position, I do not see any ground for interference in this W. P. which accordingly fails and stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Learned Govt. Advocate has been heard on merits on behalf of R-4 and R-5.