NARAYANA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL IV MANAGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the respective learned Counsel in this group of petitions. Effectively, the challenge has come from Padmavathi the youngest daughter of deceased Guruva Poojari. There are several properties which are the subject-matter of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the undisputed position that emerges is that the five other children of Guruva Poojari had filed five applications which came to be decided. The contention was that each of those parties was in cultivation of certain areas of land and the landlord's consent having been obtained, the Tribunal conceded the claims. Pursuant to the grant of occupancy rights, all further steps were taken and the proceeding effectively came to be concluded in the year 1979. As late as in the year 1991, the writ petitions have been filed. The brothers challenged the orders on a variety of grounds and that was followed up by the challenge from the sister Padmavathi in the year 1992. The contention raised is a common one namely that the children became sharers in the property belonging to the deceased and that under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act a 1/6th share would devolve on each of them, that the orders passed by the Tribunal has not gone into this aspect of the law at all and that consequently the whole set of orders requires to be set aside and the case requires to be reviewed. The defence pleased is that the Tribunal itself has accepted that the children have arrived at a certain arrangement and in the light of this position, that the court should not interfere with that order at all. Secondly, it is pointed out that the challenge has come at a late stage and thirdly, as far as Padmavathi is concerned the contention raised is that if for whatever reason she had never approached the Tribunal that she cannot at a belated stage come forward and challenge this order.

(2.) I do not dispute the fact that a strong plea was before me that the entire issue should be re-examined and as far as Padmavathi is concerned, Mr. Hegde advances the submission that she is effectively the one party who has totally got excluded from the proceedings. Various reasons have been given for this which I am not going into but Mr. Hegde's contention was that as one of the children, she is entitled to a share as of right and that this would require a re-examination and re-adjustment.

(3.) THE challenge as far as the present petitions are concerned has come at a very belated stage and I am not satisfied from what has been set out that the reasons given are either plausible or acceptable. Had there been valid and genuine grounds, I would have been the first one to overlook the delay aspect because the overall interest of justice is more important than the technicalities relating to delay. This however is not one such proceedings.