KAMALSAB Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ladkhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Question of issuing notice to other respondents does not arise since writ petition is being rejected/dismissed on the ground of delay and laches for the reasons indicated herein below.

(2.) PETITIONER is seeking for quashing of the order passed by Land Tribunal dated 28.04.1988 Annexure -B whereunder the Tribunal after considering the rival claimants' application granted occupancy rights in respect of both the applicants by granting occupancy rights to an extent of 6 acres 29 guntas in favour of each of the applicants. Petitioner is claiming to be a legatee under the Will executed by Smt Khatumbi w/o Nalband Modinsab. The grievance of petitioner is that property in question bearing Sy.No.374 measuring 13 acres 18 guntas originally belonged to one Sri Nalband Modinsab and he died leaving behind his wife Smt.Katumbi and they had no issues. Said Smt.Katumbi is said to have executed a Will on 16.12.1986 in favour of petitioner and said Will was duly registered in the office of the Sub -Registrar vide Annexure -C whereunder she claims to have bequeathed the property in question to the petitioner and as such, petitioner claims to have continued in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is contended that R3 and R4 attempted to disturb his actual possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land in question and as such, petitioner filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police which came to be registered as Cr.No.98/2000 vide Annexure -E against them and said criminal case is pending before the jurisdictional JMFC. It is further contended that legal heirs of R4 having failed in their attempt to dispossess the petitioner of his lawful possession of the property in question, have executed sale deeds which are void documents and subsequently purchasers have got the revenue records mutated to their names in the year 2006 -07 and as such, petitioner has now approached this Court for quashing of the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 28.04.1988.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that order of the Tribunal came to be passed on 28.04.1988 i.e, about 27 years back. It is also not in dispute that R -3 and R -4 had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights and they were not granted occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal and their application came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal by order dated 25.05.1977 Annexure -A. Respondent No.3 preferred Writ Petition No.48123/1977 against the order of Land Tribunal and this Court set aside the order passed by Land Tribunal and remanded the matter back to Land Tribunal by order dated 11.01.1983. It is thereafter Land Tribunal passed order dated 28.04.1988 Annexure -B after remand. Perusal of the averments made in the petition does not even remotely suggest about having given any explanation for not approaching this Court challenging the order dated 28.04.1988. There is a delay of 27 years. Delay defeats equity. This Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction would be loath to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there is inordinate and unexplained delay for myriad reasons and one such reason can be of third party rights having been crept in.