The court emphasized the importance of timely action in legal proceedings, ruling that significant delays undermine claims of being unheard and warrant dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.103252/2013 wherein set aside the order dated 31.10.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal, Manvi and matter was remitted back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to all the aggrieved parties in the said proceedings.

2. The learned Single Judge also passed an order that Land Tribunal shall expedite the proceedings and complete the entire proceedings expeditiously since the lis between the parties relates back to the year 1976. The learned Single Judge while passing an order in paragraph No.2 considering the grounds urged that, notice issued by the Land Tribunal was not served to the petitioner, who has been arrayed as respondent No.6 before the Land Tribunal.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition that the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of the contesting respondents herein despite the notice is not served to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the order passed by Land Tribunal during the month of June, 2013 and immediately, filed the present writ petition seeking aforesaid reliefs.

4. The contention of the learned counsel before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner came to know about the same only during the month of June, 2013 immediately he has challenged the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in this writ petition would contend that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and also submits that order was passed in the year 1980 and the writ petition is filed in the year 2013. The petitioner took nearly three decades to file the writ petition and therefore, delay defeats equity.

6. It is further contended that children of late Mareppa have accepted the order of the Tribunal and if the writ petition is allowed, the third party rights created in respect of the land in question will be affected.

7. The learned Single Judge having taken note of the contentions in paragraph No.11 comes to the conclusion that admittedly, there is delay of more than three decades, however, the petitioner has not been heard in the matter and his right accrued in respect of the land in question has been jeopardized on account of the order passed by the Land Tribunal by allowing the writ petition challenged the said order by filing a review petition before the learned Single Judge and in the review petition, the learned Single Judge reiterated the same and dismissed the review petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal is filed before this Court.

8. The main contention of the appellants in the writ appeal that the learned Single Judge committed an error in setting aside the order and fails to take note of the fact of inordinate delay of 33 years in challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, for which no proper, valid and reasonable explanation was offered except stating that he came to know about the same in 2013. The counsel also vehemently contend that there is no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay and ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The counsel also would vehemently contend that even after when the matter was re-opened, notices were given and even the brother of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner also appeared before the Tribunal and failed to appear for 6-8 further hearing dates and also contend that when all his brothers after abolition and reconstitution of the Tribunal they appeared and contested the matter, under the said circumstances, th