In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR WRIT PETITION No.114385/2015 (KLR-RR-SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI.SAKARAM S/O DATTU PATIL, AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 2. SHRI.MAHADEV S/O DATTU PATIL, AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 3. SHRI.JOTIRAM S/O GANAPATI PATIL AGE:63 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 4. SHRI.APPASAB S/O PANDURANG PATIL, AGE:61 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 5. SMT.SHRIMANTIBAI W/O MALAGOUDA PATIL, AGE:61 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 6. SHRI.ANAND S/O MALAGOUDA PATIL, AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 7. SHRI.SHANKAR S/O BALAGOUDA PATIL AGE:41 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 8. SHRI.SADASHIV S/O BALAGOUDA PATIL AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 9. SHRI.BAPU S/O BALAGOUDA PATIL, AGE:56 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, : 2 : 10. SHRI.PUNDALIK S/O HARI PATIL, AGE:66 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 11. SHRI.KRISHNATH S/O RAGHU PATIL, AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O:SULAGAON, TQ:CHIKODI, DIST:BELAGAVI. ...PETITIONERS (BY SHRI.S.B.DEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI, TQ:CHIKODI DIST:BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI.VILAS S/O SHIVAGOUDA PATIL, AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:SULAGAON, TQ:CHIKODI, DIST:BELAGAVI. 4. SHRI.BABASO S/O RAMAGONDA PATIL, AGE:71 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:SULAGAON, TQ:CHIKODI DIST:BELAGAVI. 5. SMT.AKKATAI W/O RAMAGONDA PATIL, AGE:52 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:SULAGAON, TQ:CHIKODI DIST:BELAGAVI. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.RAVI V.HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SHRI SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL AND SHRI ANAND BAGEWADI, ADV FOR R3 AND R5) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:21.09.2015, PASSED IN MISC/AP-05/2014-15 BY THE : 3 : RESPONDENT NO.2 (ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI) VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for quashing the order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that after lapse of 37 years 3 months 9 days, the respondents 3 to 5 preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Along with the appeal, an application had been filed for condonatin of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioners herein filed the detailed objection to the said application for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Assistant Commissioner without considering the objection filed to : 4 : the application for condonation of delay, passed a cryptic order without assigning any reasons. The said order has been questioned before this Court. 3. Sri S.B.Deyannavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is contrary to law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of SUNDRABAI VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER reported in ILR 2012 KAR 2358 and contended that the Assistant Commissioner did not consider the objection filed to the application for condonation of delay and sought for setting aside the same. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 argued in support of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the : 5 : order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and other relevant records. 6. Record clearly discloses that after lapse of 37 years 3 months 9 days, the respondents 3 to 5 preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the mutation entries made in M.E.No.1182 dated 24.12.1976. They also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The contesting respondents have filed objection to the said application. The Assistant Commissioner without considering the objection and without applying the mind has condoned the inordinate delay. No reasons have been assigned. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, valid reason has to be given for condonation of delay. Any person aggrieved by an order can prefer an appeal within a period of 90 days. In the instant case, there is an inordinate delay of 37 years 3 months 9 days. The issue raised in this petition is covered by the judgment referred to above more : 6 : particularly at paragraph 7. Hence, the order dated 21.09.2015 passed in Misc/AP-05/2014-15 by the Assistant Commissioner cannot be sustained. The Assistant Commissioner has to reconsider the matter afresh. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 21.09.2015 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law as per the judgment referred to above. Parties to bear their own costs. In view of disposal of the writ petition, IA-I/2016 is dismissed as unnecessary. Sd/- JUDGE Jm/-.

Load more