Karnataka High Court
Nagedrasa Khode S/O. Hanumanthsa vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2022
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
LRRP 100002/2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
L.R.R.P.No.100002/2015
BETWEEN:
Shri Nagendrasa Khode,
S/o Hanumanthsa,
Since dead by his legal heirs.
1. Shri Ashok Khode,
S/o late Nagendrasa,
Age: 63 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Krishnapur, Hubballi.
2. Shri Vinayak Khode,
S/o late Hanumanthsa,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Krishnapur, Hubballi.
3. Shri Manjunath Khode,
S/o late Hanumanthsa,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Krishnapur, Hubballi.
4. Shri Manohar Khode,
S/o late Hanumanthsa,
Age: 61 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Krishnapur, Hubballi.
5. Smt. Laxmibai Khode,
D/o late Jawaharsa,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Krishnapur, Hubballi.
LRRP 100002/2015
-2-
6. Shri Tarasa Khode,
S/o late Jawaharsa,
Age: 33 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Krishnapur, Hubballi.
7. Shri Raju Khode,
S/o late Jawaharsa,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Krishnapur, Hubballi. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri Shriharsh A.Neelopant, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru - 01.
2. Land Tribunal,
Rep. by President,
Hubballi Taluka,
Dharwad District.
3. Appellate Authority,
Rep. by Law Officer,
Land Tribunal, Dharwad,
Dharwad District.
Shri Huligeppa,
S/o Parasappa Garwad,
Since dead by his legal heirs.
4. Shri Ramappa Garwad,
S/o late Huligeppa,
Age: 68 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Krishnapur, Hubballi.
5. Shri Gurappa Garwad,
S/o late Huligeppa,
Age: 65 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Krishnapur, Hubballi. ..RESPONDENTS
LRRP 100002/2015
-3-
(By Sri Prashant Mogali, HCGP for R-1 to R-3;
Sri S.H.Mittalkod, Sri Vinay S.Koujalagi &
Sri M.L.Vanti, Advs. for R-4;
Sri Shrikant T.Patil & Sri Rohit S.Patil, Adv. for R-5)
This revision petition is filed under Section 121 of the
Land Reforms Act, praying to set aside the orders passed by
the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad, in
LRA/99/1986 dated 31.08.1987 and the order dated
29.05.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Hubballi, in
KLR/SR/K11.
This revision petition coming on for Orders , this day the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.08.1987 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad, in No.LRA/99/1986, wherein the order dated 29.05.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Hubballi, in No.KLR/SR/K11 granting occupancy rights of the lands in dispute in favour of late Huligeppa - father of respondents 4 & 5 has been confirmed.
2. IA-1/2016 has been filed to condone the delay of 9145 days in filing the revision petition. The said application is opposed by the contesting respondents 4 & 5 by filing a detailed statement of objections. LRRP 100002/2015 -4-
3. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of IA- 1/2016, wherein a prayer is made to condone the inordinate delay of 9145 days caused in filing the revision petition, it has been stated that the father of petitioner no.1 herein - late Nagendrasa Khode had suffered paralysis attack in the year 1987 and after long period of sickness, he finally died on 19.01.1988. After his death, his elder son Hanumanthsa became mentally upset, and therefore, he was treated in the mental hospital, and finally he died on 03.04.1996. Subsequently, petitioner no.1's son is said to have been absconding and the entire family is said to have been upset because of the same. It is further stated that petitioner no.1 met with an accident and it took four years for him to recover. It is further stated that thereafter, his wife Smt. Premilabai suffered paralysis attack and she died due to the same on 24.11.2009.
4. On the last occasion, after hearing this matter for sometime, time was granted to the learned Counsel for LRRP 100002/2015 -5- the petitioners to produce medical records in support of the statement made by petitioner no.1 in paragraph 4 of the affidavit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has not produced any material to show that either petitioner no.1 had met with the accident or that his wife had suffered paralysis attack and that his son had left the house and has not returned etc. There is no documentary evidence even to show the illness of his father and brother. The explanation sought to be offered for condoning the inordinate delay of 9145 days is not supported with any documentary evidence.
5. The contesting respondents have raised a serious objection for condoning the inordinate delay of 9145 days in filing the revision petition. They have stated in the statement of objections that the revision petition is filed with an inordinate delay of 25 years and no proper explanation is given in the affidavit and the averments made in the affidavit are not supported with any medical records.
LRRP 100002/2015-6-
6. Under the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have slept over their rights and were not diligent in prosecuting the petition, I am of the view that the inordinate delay of 9145 days caused in filing the revision petition which is not supported by any documentary evidence, cannot be condoned. Accordingly, IA-1/2016 filed by the petitioner to condone the inordinate delay of 9145 days caused in filing the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK