- (1.)THE Writ Petition No. 35385 of 1997 filed by the appellant herein calling in question the validity of the order of the Land Tribunal, karkala dated 3-10-1981 is dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present writ appeal by the aggrieved writ petitioner.
(2.)THE facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition be noted in the first instance in brief and they are as follows.-The appellant claiming to be the tenant of certain lands including the land admeasuring 71 cents comprised in Sy. No. 41/3 of Bola Village, karkala Taluk (hereinafter shall be shortly referred to as 'scheduled land') filed Form 7 for declaration under Section 45 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act' ). The Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry, by its order dated 3-10-1981, granted occupancy rights of 86 cents of land in Sy. No. 41/2a, 1 acre 2 cents of land in Sy. No. 41/2c, 4 cents of land in Sy. No. 375/1 and 1 acre 69 cents of land in sy. No. 375/2. It is quite apparent from the order of the Land Tribunal dated 3-10-1981 that the Land Tribunal has not granted occupancy rights of 71 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 41/3 though the said land was claimed by the appellant-tenant.
(3.)THE appellant being aggrieved by the said order of the Land tribunal dated 3-10-1981 filed W. P. No. 13135 of 1982 in this Court. Consequent upon the constitution of the Land Reforms Appellate authority by amendment, the matter was transmitted to the Appellate authority and subsequently on abolition of the Land Reforms Appellate authority, the matter was retransmitted to this Court and the same was renumbered as W. P. No. 20318 of 1993. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 25-7-1994 for non-prosecution. The appellant/petitioner filed civil petition for setting aside of the default order dated 25-7-1994 and for restoration of the writ petition. That civil petition was heard by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court and not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant/petitioner for nearly four years delay in preferring the civil petition, the Division Bench, by its order dated 28-8-1997 dismissed the civil petition. While doing so, the Division Bench observed thus:
"an order was passed disposing of the matter on 25-7-1994 and application for recalling that order was made on 20-8-1997. We are usually very liberal in these matters in condoning the delay and recalling our orders. But considering the enormous amount of delay like 4 years in a matter of this nature, we do not think we should condone the delay in this case as the explanation sought to be offered is not satisfactory".
The order made by the Division Bench in the civil petition on 28-8-1997 was allowed to become final.