AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The total extent of land in Sy. No. 54/1+2 situated at Hulikatti Village is 36-04 acres. Out of that, occupancy right was granted by the Land Tribunal by the impugned order at Annexure-A to an extent of 5-36 acres in favour of 3rd respondent. The petitioner is the purchaser of 9-00 acres of land in the said survey number. He has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order on irrelevant grounds. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason.
The petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition as he was not a party before the Land Tribunal. The landowners have not challenged the impugned order. On the other hand, they have admitted the tenancy. Hence, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the impugned order.
Petitioner himself has stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that suit in O.S. No. 37 of 1984 was filed for injunction and an order in his favour was passed. Thus, the right of the petitioner protected. If he has got any grievance from any other person, he is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for necessary reliefs. The petitioner cannot approach this Court on the ground that he was not made a party to the proceedings or proper enquiry was not conducted and so on. As long as he is the owner of 9-00 acres as per the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds, he can assert his ownership rights in accordance with law, if that land does not cover the impugned order granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent 3.
The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The impugned order was of the year 1979 whereas the challenge to the same was made in the year 1985, after a lapse of 6 years. The reason assigned for the delay in paragraph 3 of the writ petition is pendency of the suit filed for injunction. According to the petitioner, until then he was not aware of the impugned order. But, the mutation entry in favour of the tenant as per Annexure-Rl was produced along with the objections filed to the writ petition. The mutation entry is dated 15-1-1982. Hence, the statement of the petitioner that he was not aware of the impugned order until the suit was contested in the year 1984, cannot be believed.
The contention of the petitioner that he had no opportunity before passing the impugned order and hence the matter be remanded, is wholly untenable. The tenant claimed occupancy right from the true owners of the land. The petitioner being purchaser of a portion of the land, cannot be arrayed as a party to the proceedings and he cannot seek any opportunity in the matter.
Assuming that the tenanted portion is purchased by the petitioner, the same is in contravention of Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as first option to purchase the land was not given to the tenant. But, it is not the case of the petitioner that the extent to which occupancy right is granted is in respect of the portion purchased by him or part thereof. As long as that is not the grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner has no cause of action or infringement of any right to approach this Court. The writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit.
The writ petition is dismissed.