Karnataka High Court
Smt Premalatha Melanta vs The Land Tribunal on 28 January, 2013
Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR
W.A.NO.18004/2011(LR)
BETWEEN
SMT PREMALATHA MELANTA
AGED 75 YEARS
W/O MANJAYYA MELANTA
SHIVANAGAR, KAVOOR
MANGALORE-575015 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
MANGALORE TALUK
MANGALORE, D.K.-575001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
3. MRS. CICILIA MORAS, MAJOR
W/O LATE MICHAEL MORAS
2
4. SRI RONY MORAS, MAJOR
S/O LATE MICHAEL MORAS
5. SRI IRVIN MORAS, MAJOR
S/O LATE MICHAEL MORAS
6. SRI PELCY MORAS, MAJOR
S/O LATE MICHAEL MORAS
7. SRI LACHALA MORAS, MAJOR
S/O LATE MICHAEL MORAS
8. SRI OLVIN MORAS, MAJOR
S/O LATE MICHAEL MORAS
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 8 ARE
RESIDENTS OF KAVOOR VILLAGE MANGALORE TQ, MANGALORE D.K.-575015
9. THE COMMISSIONER CITY CORPORATION LALBAGH, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA-575001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M KESHAVA REDDY, AGA) THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.1513/2008 DATED 08/11/2011.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, DILIP B. BHOSALE J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PC:
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8th Nov. 2011, passed in W.P. No.1513/08 whereby the appellant's petition has been rejected. The appellant -
landlady challenged the order passed under section 48A of the Land Reforms Act, 1980, on the ground that she was not heard when the application was decided. It has come on record that her husband was present when the application - form no.7 was considered and decided. Learned single Judge has considered this aspect and decided the case in proper perspective. The relevant observations made in the impugned order read thus:
" I am of the view that it is too late in the day for this Court to examine the matter. Indeed, it is to be noticed that the occupancy rights are granted in favour of the original applicant. The order is of the year 1980. Writ petition is filed in the year 2008 i.e. after lapse of nearly 28 years. Indeed, no prudent litigant would keep away from the Court for a period of 28 years. I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground 4 of latches as well as on the basis of concession made by the husband of the petitioner. If there is a serious dispute to the title, that is required to be settled between the husband and wife in a competent Court. Having said so, I am of the view that the question of interference does not arise. Petition stands rejected."
For the reasons recorded in the order the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SAK