Bullamma and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

H. Billappa, J.—The learned AGA is directed to Lake notice for the respondent No. 1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 21-5-1977, passed by the Land Tribunal, Shimoga, in case No. LRF (I) KDR 144//1974-75 vide Annexure-C, in so far as it relates to granting of occupancy rights in favour of Bommanna in respect of Sy. No. 105 to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas.

Briefly stated the facts are:

The land bearing Sy. No. 103, measuring 1 acre 26 guntas, situated at Uragadur village, was Inam land. One Nanjunda Jois was the owner. The father of the petitioners late Revanna was the tenant. He filed application before the Tahsildar, Shimoga. After holding enquiry, the proceedings were submitted to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition Act, Hassan Division. The Special Deputy Commissioner by order dated 28-6-1969 allowed the petitioners father to continue as tenant under Sec. 9(A) of the Inam Abolition Act. After the death of petitioners father, his wife Rangamma and the petitioners continued to cultivate the land and they are in possession.

Late Rangamma, the mother of the petitioners filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 103 to an extent of 1 acre 26 guntas. One Marulappa and Bommanna also filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 103 of Uragadur village. After holding enquiry, the Tribunal by its order dated 21-5-1977 granted occupancy rights in favour of Bommanna in respect of Sy. No. 103 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas. Rangamma was granted occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 174.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to granting of occupancy rights in favour of Bommanna in respect of Sy. No. 10.3 to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas of Uragadur village, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioners father by Special Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioners had filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 103 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas. The Tribunal without considering the evidence on record properly has granted occupancy rights in favour of Bommanna in respect of Sy. No. 103 to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas. Further he submitted that the mother of the petitioners was illiterate and the Tribunal without following the procedure has granted occupancy rights. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law''s.

As against this, the learned AGA submitted that the impugned order is passed on 21-5-1977. The petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2013. There is inordinate delay of nearly 36 years in approaching this court. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. He also submitted that the impugned order has been passed after holding enquiry in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned AGA.

The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned order calls for interference? It is relevant to note, the impugned order 13 passed in the year 1977 i.e., on 21-5-1977. The petitioners have approached this Court on 22-7-2013. There is inordinate delay of nearly 36 years in approaching this Court. Apart from this, the impugned order shows that the petitioners mother has consented for granting of occupancy rights in favour of Bommanna and the statement of the holder of the land also has been recorded. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

According, the writ petition is dismissed.