- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF JULY, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. KEMPANNA

WRIT APPEAL No.6252/2011 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAMALINGA DEV TRUST, ASOGA, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES

1. SRI BABURAO S/O GANESH PATIL, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT ASOGA VILLAGE, TALUKA , DISTRICT: .

2. SRI DUDAPPA, S/O TANAPPA BIRJE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT ASOGA VILLAGE, TALUKA KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELGAUM.

3. SRI MADHUKAR S/O MASHNU SUTAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT ASOGA VILLAGE, TALUKA KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELGAUM. - 2 -

4. SRI NARAYANA S/O GOVIND PATIL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT ASOGA VILLAGE, TALUKA KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELGAUM.

5. SRI MAHADEV S/O MUTTAPPA PATIL @ GAVADA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT ASOGA VILLAGE, TALUKA KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELGAUM. … APPELLANTS (By SMT. HEMALEKHA K.S., ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KHANAPUR-II, REPTD. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DIST: BELGAUM.

3. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUKA: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.

4. PRABHAKAR S/O GANESH MANERIKAR, AGED 78 YEARS, R/O ASOGA VILLAGE, TALUKA: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.

5. SRI MADHUKAR S/O GANESH MANERIKAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O ASOGA VILLAGE, TALUKA: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM. - 3 -

6. SMT. SMITHA W/O MADHUKAR MANERIKAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O ASOGA VILLAGE, TALUKA: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.

7. SRI MILIND S/O MADHUKAR MANERIKAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O ASOGA VILLAGE, TALUKA: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS

(By SRI F.V.PATIL, ADV. FOR C/R5; Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, Adv. For R-2))

This writ appeal is filed under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set-aside the order passed by the learned single Judge IN W.P.No.68437/2010 dated 14.06.2011.

This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed in the year 2010, challenging the order dated 14.11.1981 passed by the Land Reforms

Tribunal, Khanapur, granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.5.

2. The learned Single Judge has set out in para-3 of the order, the cause shown by the appellant for - 4 - delay in filing the writ petition. Thereafter, he has observed the delay set out is not convincing. Then the learned Single Judge has also taken note of the proceedings in W.P.No.27892/2002 and has come to the conclusion that the appellants are not innocent and they were contesting the matters, they know what are the lands which are tenanted and what are the lands which are not tenanted and therefore, it cannot be said that they were not aware of the said order of the Land Reforms Tribunal and therefore, declined to entertain the writ petition filed after 30 years of the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal.

Aggrieved by the said order, appellants are before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants, assailing the impugned order, contends that respondent No.5 in whose favour the occupancy rights are granted as also the vahiwatdar of the lands, the appellants who are trustees of the trust bonafide believed that their names are entered in the mutation register in - 5 - capacity as vahiwatdar and not as tenants under the

Land Reforms Act. It is only on their attempt to sell, they came to know of the order of the Land Tribunal.

Therefore she contends, the delay is bonafide and requires to be condoned and the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

4. We do not see any substance in the said contention. The appellants are the trustees of

Ramalinga Dev Trust to whom the land in question belongs. The management of the trust includes management of the land belonging to the trust. It is not in dispute, from 1981 till today in the RTC, the name of the trust is not mentioned. It is the name of respondent No.5 which is mentioned which was entered in pursuance of the order of the Land

Tribunal. If the appellants have slept over the matter and not looked into the entries and have not bothered to cultivate the land, it cannot be said, it is a bonafide act on their part. It is also well settled, the - 6 - things which are well settled should not be unsettled by the Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution of . If the order of the land tribunal granting occupancy rights has stood test of time for 30 years, one generation has passed by now, at the instance of these appellants, it cannot be set-aside.

5. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the case. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.2/2012 for stay is dismissed.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE mkc