AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By consent of Mr Prasanna V R, learned advocate for the appellants, the appeal is taken up for hearing.
This is an appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated November 10, 2014, passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge in Civil Petition (KLRA) No 1 of 2011.
The appellants-petitioners filed the said petition contending that the father of the original petitioner Mr P Venkataramana Bhat, filed Writ Petition No 2536 of 1986 before this court, challenging the impugned order dated September 19, 1981, passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the father of the original petitioner died on April 11, 1986. However, his heirs and the legal representatives were not brought on record.
Thereafter, the said writ petition was transmitted to the Land Tribunal/Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the matter before the Appellate Authority, an amendment was made to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, abolishing the Appellate Authority and time was granted till March 31, 1991 to file a civil petition before this court in respect of all pending matters.
It is the contention of the appellants-petitioners that as the father of the original petitioner Venkataramana Bhat died even during the pendency of the writ petition before this court, the pendency of the said proceedings before the Appellate Authority was not within their knowledge and, therefore, there was a delay in preferring the civil petition before this court.
The Hon''ble Single Judge considered the matter at length and by the impugned order dated November 10, 2014, dismissed the Civil Petition on the ground of delay and laches.
We have perused the order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge. So also, the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants. A perusal of the records would show that the civil petition was filed after lapse of more than 19 years. The Hon''ble Single Judge considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner and, rightly, dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches. The reasons assigned by the Hon''ble Single Judge are sound and do not call for any interference by this court in this appeal.
That apart, it is observed that the Civil Petition was filed by the father of the appellants herein, after the death of his father and during the pendency of the civil petition, the original petitioner, that is, the father of the appellants in this appeal, also, died. However, the appellants did not apply for substitution, although the right to proceed with the petition survives to them. We are of the opinion that a second challenge by the heirs and the legal representatives of the aggrieved person is not maintainable.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.