(Prayer: This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dt.26.6.1981 passed by the 2nd Respondent in case No. Lry. 25/79-80 a true copy of which is produced as Ann- J and etc.)

CAV Order

1. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 26.06.1981 passed by respondent No.2 in case No. LRY 25/79-80 as per Annexure-J and the order dated 22.10.1981 passed by respondent No.3 in case No. LRY 29/79-80 as per Annexure-K.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the land mentioned in 'C' Schedule of the writ petition originally belongs to the undivided family of respondent Nos.4 to 12. The said properties were sold in public auction held on 19.03.1973 and the petitioner was the successful bidder. The sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 23.03.1973, since then he was in possession and enjoyment of 'C' schedule property.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, respondent Nos.4 to 16 or their predecessors-in-interest had never cultivated the lands mentioned in schedule A and B properties as tenants immediately prior to or subsequent to 01.03.1974.

In such circumstance, the property did not vest with the government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

4. Things stood thus, the petitioner had received a notice of enquiry from the office of Assistant Commissioner, Puttur Sub- Division in case No.R.R.T.SR.23/2012-13, in the appeal filed by respondent No.8 to issue Form No.10 in his favour by deleting the name of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Land Tribunal as per Annexures- J and K dated 26.06.1981 and 22.10.1981 respectively, by granting occupancy right in respect of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. Hence, the petitioner challenged the same in this writ petition.

5. Heard Sri. A.V Gangadharappa and Sri G.Ravishankar., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3, Sri. Keshava Bhat and Sri K Srikrishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 and 4, Sri P Karunakar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.14 and 15 and Sri Krishnamoorthy D., learned counsel for respondent No.13.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased 'C' schedule property in a public auction dated 19.03.1973 and he was in possession of the same. The family members of the respondent Nos.4 to 16 were never in possession of the said land, much less as tenants either under the petitioner or others. They themselves being the owners of the property colluding with each other filed Form No.7 by claiming the petitioner as landlord. The Tribunal without conducting any proper enquiry granted occupancy right in favour of the respondents. He also contended that since there is no landlord and tenancy relationship between the petitioner and respondents as on 01.03.1974, the land claimed by them did not vest with the government, as such, the grant made in favour of the respective respondents is not sustainable under law.

7. He further contended that ever since from the date of issuance of Sale Certificate issued on 23.03.1973 pursuant to auction purchase, the petitioner is in cultivation of the B and C schedule properties. He also contended that the impugned orders were passed behind the back of the petitioner without notice to him. The alleged enquiry conducted by the Land Tribunal is not as per Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. Accordingly, he prays to quash the impugned order.

8. Per contra, the contesting respondents submits that, the writ petition is not maintainable solely on the ground of delay and laches since the petitioner challenged the impugned orders of the year 1981 after lapse of three decades, that too without explaining any proper reasons for condoning the delay. Further, he contended that the petitioner was very much aware of the impugned orders since he is the respondent in both the impugned orders and the order depicts that the notice was served to him and he gave consent for grant of occupancy right in favour of the contesting respondents before the Land Tribunal. In such circumstance, the petitioner's claim that he had no knowledge of passing of the impugned order cannot be accepted.

9. Further, he also contended that, after the impugned orders, all the revenue entries were mutated in the name of contesting respondents till the year 2010 and on 31.03.2010, the petitioner filed an application before the Tahsildar to change the revenue entries. Accordingly, the Tahsildar has changed the revenue entries, against which, respondent No.8 has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. In such circumstance, the reasons explained by the petitioner for the inordinate delay is not acceptable. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed both on facts as well as on merits.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the materials on record.

11. As could be gathered from records, the impugned orders at Annexure J and K are passed on 26.06.1981 and 22.10.1981 respectively by the Land Tribunal, Belthanagady granting occupancy right in favour of contesting respondents. However, the instant petition has been filed in the year 2012 i.e., after lapse of 31 years. As such, before delving into the merits of the case, it is relevant to examine the reasons assigned by the petitioner for the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition.

12. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders were passed without notifying him and he came to know about the order only in the year 2011-12, when he received a notice from the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur, in RRT No.23/2012-13. However, on careful examination of Annexures J and K, the same reveals that the petitioner has been arrayed as respondent/landlord in the said order and he was served with the notice and remained unrepresented initially and thereafter, consented for the claim of occupancy right made by the contesting respondents. Without disputing the said aspect seriously, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders since there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the contesting respondents.

13. As stated supra, when the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches, question of considering the legality and merits of the impugned order does not arise. It is equally important to note that, after the grant of 'C' and 'D' schedule properties in favour of the contesting respondents, all the revenue entries mutated in their name and the said aspect was very much within the knowledge of petitioner since he had filed an application before the Tahsildar to change the revenue entries in his name in the year 2010 without disclosing the grant order passed in favour of the contesting respondents and against which, an appeal has been preferred by the contesting respondents. In such circumstance, in my considered view, the petitioner has failed to explain the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS Vs. T.T. MURALI BABU - (2014) 4 SCC 108, at paragraph 17 has held as under;

          "17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold. "

15. In that view of the matter, I find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.