Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Pandurang Devasthan vs The Land Tribunal Hukkeri on 24 July, 2012

Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna

                                -1-


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

     DATED THIS THE 24 T H DAY OF JULY, 2012
                          PRESENT
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
                             AND
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. KEMPANNA

            WRIT APPEAL NO.30050/2012 (KLRA )

BETWEEN:

Panduranga Devasthan
By its Wahiwatdar
Shri. Pramod Venkatesh Joshi
Age: 52 years
Occ: Agriculturist & Worship
R/o. Kochari Village
Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum.                   ...Appellant

(By Sri.Mahesh B. Patil, and
    Sri.AS.R.Angadi, Advs.,)

AND:

1.     Land Tribunal Hukkeri
       Rep. by its Chairman
       Hukkeri, Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum.

2.     The State of Karnataka
       Rep. by its Secretary
       Revenue Department
                             -2-


     Vidhana Soudha
     Bangalore - 1.

     Shri. Kallappa
     S/o. Rama Koli
     Since deceased by his LR's.

3.   Smt. Parwati
     W/o. Kallappa Koli
     Age: 65 years
     Occ: Household work
     R/o. Arjunwada Village
     Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum.

4.   Shri. Ramappa,
     S/o. Kallappa Koli
     Age: 48 years,
     Occ: Agriculture
     R/o. - do-

5.   Shri.Satappa,
     S/o. Kallappa Koli
     Age: 47 years,
     Occ: Agriculture
     R/o. - do-

6.   Shri. Basappa,
     S/o. Kallappa Koli
     Age: 45 years,
     Occ: Agriculture
     R/o. - do-

7.   Smt. Gowravva,
     W/o. Kempanna Koli
     Age: 43 years,
                              -3-


      Occ: Household Work
      R/o. - do-

8.    Smt. Kamalawwa
      W/o. Ramachandra Patil
      Age: 40 years
      Occ: Household Work
      R/o. Kamwade at/po:Rajgoli
      Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum.

      Shri. Shankar
      S/o. Rama Koli
      Since deceased rep. by his LRs'.

9.    Smt. Sharawwa
      W/o. Shankar Koli
      Age: 60 years
      Occ: Household Work.
      R/o. Arjunwad Village,
      Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum.

10.   Shri. Ramesh
      S/o. Shankar Koli
      Age: 40 years
      Occ: Agriculture.
      R/o. Arjunwad Village,
      Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum.

11.   Shri. Mahalinga
      S/o. Shankar Koli
      Age: 38 years
      Occ: Agriculture.
      R/o. Arjunwad Village,
      Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum.
                              -4-


12.   Shri. Basavaraj
      S/o. Shankar Koli
      Age: 36 years
      Occ: Agriculture
      R/o. Arjunwad Village,
      Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum.

13.   Smt. Suvarna
      W/o. Balappa Mandoli
      Age: 35 years
      Occ: Household work
      R/O. Shivapur,
      Tq. Gokak, Dist. Belgaum.

14.   Smt. Laxmibai.
      W/o. Mahadev Dalwai
      Age: 35 years,
      Occ: Household Work
      R/o. Awargol, Tq. Hukker
      Dist. Belgaum.

15.   Smt. Shanta
      W/o. Babu Walikar
      Age: 32 years
      Occ: Household Work
      R/o. Jamakhandi
      Tq. Jamakhandi
      Dist. Bijapur.                      ...Respondents

(By Sri.A.A.Pathan, AGA, for R.2)

     This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the
order dated 6.10.2005 passed by the learned single Judge in
                             -5-


W.P.No.40294/1993 and allow the prayer No.14(I) in writ
petition.

    This appeal coming on for orders                  this   day,
N.Kumar J., delivered the following:

                    J U D G M E N T

The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 06.10.2005 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. The subject matter of the dispute is the land bearing Sy.Nos.37/2B/1 and 37/2B/2 situated at Kocheri Village of Hukkeri Taluk. It belongs to one Panduranga Devastan. The persons who are cultivating the said land as tenants filed form No.7 under the provision of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, seeking for grant of occupancy rights. Similarly, one Venkatesh Joshi, who is the vahivatdar of Paduranga Devastan also filed Form No.1 claiming -6- occupancy rights under the provision of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. His application in Form No.1 came to be dismissed on 25.10.1981 and occupancy right was granted in favour of the tenants. The same was challenged by the appellant herein by preferring Writ Petition No.40294/1993. His case was; he is the adopted son of Venkatesh Joshi. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 6.10.2005. Thereafter, a writ appeal has been filed challenging the said order on 4.1.2012. As there was a delay of nearly 2246 days, an application was filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that he is economically poor; he has not conversant with the procedure; he has lost hopes about the case. When he approached in the year 2011 and made enquiries, he came to know about the -7- disposal of the writ petition on 6.10.2005. Further he stated that the tenants are not eligible for grant of occupancy rights and therefore, he contends that delay in preferring the application is to be condoned. Facts set out above shows that the application of Venaktesh Joshi was dismissed on 25.10.1981. It is after nearly six years, writ petition came to be filed. The said writ petition came to be dismissed in the year 2005 and the writ appeal is filed in the year 2012. This conduct speaks for itself that the appellant was not diligent in prosecuting the matter and in fact, he is the adopted son of Venkatesh Joshi. The original vahivatdar died issue-less and the Court is not meant for a person who slept over his rights by meeting his advocates as per his convenience and after attending to all his matters in life, but did not spend any time to approach the Court. If legal right of a person is affected, he should -8- approach the Court at the earliest point of time. We find that this writ appeal is filed after establishment of the Circuit Bench at Dharwad and the cause shown do not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay of six years in preferring the appeal. No merits. Dismissed.

In fact, from the conduct of the appellant after filing the writ petition, he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Anyhow, we dismiss all the applications for delay as well as application for recalling the order. Accordingly, applications are dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE SD/-

JUDGE SA/-