The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of delay and latches in invoking the Writ jurisdiction, the participation of the petitioner's father in the tenancy proceedings, and the non-joinder of third-party interests in challenging the Land Tribunal order.

JUDGMENT

Krishna S.Dixit, J. - Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Land Tribunal order dated 27.05.1987 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-E whereby occupancy rights have been registered concerning the land admeasuring 07 Acres & 20 Guntas in Sy. Nos. 42 & 43 of Vodeyarahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluka, in favour of 4th Respondent- Sri Jayaramaiah.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that: at no point of time, the 4th Respondent had cultivated the land either as tenant or otherwise; occupancy has been granted on the strength of fabricated documents; entries in the Revenue Records do not support the tenancy; Petitioner had no notice of occupancy proceedings; 1978 Sale Deed under which, the 4th Respondent bought the adjoining land does not mention anything about he being the tenant of the Petition land; Petitioner and his father being 'illiterate & rustic villagers', had no knowledge of the impugned order and on coming to know of the same, by virtue of Caveat entered by the 4th Respondent in the Civil Court, he has approached this Court. Thus, there is no delay & latches that come in the way of invalidation of the impugned order.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents and the learned advocate appearing for the 4th Respondent - Tenant oppose the Writ Petition with equal vehemence making submission in support of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. The 4th Respondent has filed the Statement of Objections producing a wealth of material by way of Annexures. They deny the explanation offered by the Petitioner for the delay & latches of about 35 years. The advocate for 4th Respondent contends: the subject property has changed hands by registered Sale Deeds and the buyers thereof have not been made parties; the entire land except 01 Acre & 38 Guntas has already been developed as a layout and sold to others; Petitioner's father was before this Court as a Respondent in 4th Respondent's W.P.No.23482/1981, disposed off on 23.02.1983 whereby the grant of occupancy having been set aside, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. Despite service of notice, the Petitioner's father chose not to participate in the proceedings; the Land Tribunal after weighing the evidentiary material on record has granted occupancy and therefore, the matter does not merit deeper examination in a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227. So contending, both they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

A. DELAY & LATCHES OF 35 YEARS AND CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONER:

a) The impugned order of the Land Tribunal was made on 27.05.1987 and the Writ Petition has been filed on 21.10.2021. Thus, by a simple arithmetics, there is a long delay of 35 years in invoking the Writ jurisdiction. The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that her client and his father 'are illiterate and rustic villagers having no knowledge or notice of the proceedings before Land Tribunal' is very difficult to accept for more than one reason: the father of Petitioner had participated in the tenancy proceedings effectively and he had obtained the order dated 04.07.1999 at the hands of the Tribunal in his favour. This was challenged in W.P.No.23482/1981 by the tenant and Petitioner's father was the 3rd Respondent in the same. He had engaged an advocate and resisted the Writ Petition. However, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.02.1983, allowed the Petition, set aside the Land Tribunal order and remanded the matter for consideration afresh. Thereafter, Petitioner's father on service of notice appeared before the Land Tribunal on 02.09.1986 and 30.09.1986 and that his signatures in the proceeding sheet are not disputed. Subsequently, he remained absent consecutively on six hearing dates