AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jagdish Singh Khehar, C.J.—Through the interlocutory application I.A. No. II/2007, the applicants/Appellants seek condonation of delay for a period of 1141 days. The explanation tendered for the aforesaid delay, stands recorded in paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 of the affidavit dated 18.04.2010. The same are accordingly extracted hereunder;
That, though the WP No. 30639/02 was dismissed on 28.01.2004 we could not able to approach this Hon''ble Court for following reasons;
a) Learned Judge observed that appropriate remedy for Petitioner is to approach civil court for a declaration. If the Appellants/Petitioners were to approach civil court for a declaration that would seriously affect the proceedings which are pending in revenue court before which the Petitioners are having a suitable remedy. Hence, Appellants were waiting for closure of revenue proceedings. The false and fabricated mutation entries which were effected in favour of Respondent No. 2 though set aside by Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore rural in RP No. 1/97, 10/97, 31/98 & 9/00 dated 7.1.2003 vide Annexure-Z. Tahsildar, effected another false mutation entry which are once again challenged before this Hon''ble Court in WP No. 17471/2006 and this Hon''ble Court has granted stay for operation of said mutations vide Annexure-AA.
b) Further, learned Judge in his order dated 28.1.04 passed in WP No. 30639/02 has observed that WP No. 21039/00 has been dismissed as withdrawn. But fact remains that Appellants have not withdrawn but Respondent No. 1 has in his statement of objections dated 7.8.00 has given an undertaking before court that he would not disburse compensation amount until all mutation proceedings are decided. Till then he would not disburse compensation amount to any parties. Relying on the said undertaking learned Single Judge dismissed the WP No. 21039/00 as withdrawn. Said fact came to knowledge of Petitioner/Appellants only on 5.10.06 when certified copies are obtained. Respondent No. 1 had not served any copy at the time of filing of objections. Then only Appellants thought of approaching this Hon''ble Court by way of appeal.
c) Subsequently, from 5.10.06 onwards Appellant was not feeling well suffering from cervical spondilities.
d) Further, when the Respondent No. 2 started staking claim over the higher compensation amount of Rs. 1,21,545/- the Appellants left with no alternative to approach this Hon''ble Court. Her claim is once again based on judgment and order passed in WP No. 30639/2002 dated 28.1.2004.
xxx
We have got a good case on merits. If we are denied an opportunity to pursue the above appeal only on the point of limitation, we would be exposed to great hardship inconvenience & injury.
We were under the bonafide belief that we could proceed against Respondents after the conclusion of revenue proceedings. But revenue authorities are effecting series of mutations in favour of Respondent No. 2 which ultimately pending before this Hon''ble Court in WP No. 17471/2006.
We are satisfied, that the justification explained at the hands of the Appellants for condonation of delay cannot be accepted, in terms of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
In view of the above, I.A. No. 11/2007 is hereby dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the main writ appeal stands disposed of