D. Chikkabasapppa Since dead by his LRs, D.C. Basavaraju and Smt. Yeshodamma vs State of Karnataka, The Land Tribunal and N.T. Nanjappa Since dead By his LR Muniyamma

Ajit J. Gunjal

The petitioner is not entitled for any relief on two grounds. One is the admission made by him that the respondent was cultivating the land as a tenant. Another is that there is a delay of 20 years in filing this writ petition inasmuch as the order is passed on 17.08.19.87.

Respondent No. 3 made an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. In the first instance, occupancy rights are granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. The same was questioned by the petitioner by way of writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal.

After remand, the statements were recorded and during the course of enquiry, the petitioners would make a statement before the Tribunal indicating that the respondent was cultivating the land as a tenant to an extent of 4 acres 25 guntas. Indeed that is the statement of the son as well as the daughter of the owner. It is also to be noticed that the son is a factory employee. Hence, the question of he cultivating the land does not arise. Another ground as observed is that the impugned order is passed in the year 1987 and the writ petition is filed in the year 2009. A perusal of the petition averments do not disclose the cause for such an inordinate delay. Having said so. I am of the view that the question of interfering with the impugned order does not arise.

Petition stands rejected.

Mr. Shashidhar S. Karmadi, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.