Timely challenges to tribunal orders are essential; significant delay without justification can undermine claims for relief.

ORDER :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

1. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 26.06.1981 passed by respondent No.2 in case No. LRY 25/79-80 as per Annexure-J and the order dated 22.10.1981 passed by respondent No.3 in case No. LRY 29/79-80 as per Annexure-K.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the land mentioned in 'C' Schedule of the writ petition originally belongs to the undivided family of respondent Nos.4 to 12. The said properties were sold in public auction held on 19.03.1973 and the petitioner was the successful bidder. The sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 23.03.1973, since then he was in possession and enjoyment of 'C' schedule property.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, respondent Nos.4 to 16 or their predecessors-in-interest had never cultivated the lands mentioned in schedule A and B properties as tenants immediately prior to or subsequent to 01.03.1974. In such circumstance, the property did not vest with the government under Section 44 of the KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT .

4. Things stood thus, the petitioner had received a notice of enquiry from the office of Assistant Commissioner, Puttur Sub- Division in case No.R.R.T.SR.23/2012-13, in the appeal filed by respondent No.8 to issue Form No.10 in his favour by deleting the name of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Land Tribunal as per Annexures- J and K dated 26.06.1981 and 22.10.1981 respectively, by granting occupancy right in respect of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. Hence, the petitioner challenged the same in this writ petition.

5. Heard Sri. A.V Gangadharappa and Sri G.Ravishankar., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3, Sri. Keshava Bhat and Sri K Srikrishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 and 4, Sri P Karunakar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.14 and 15 and Sri Krishnamoorthy D., learned counsel for respondent No.13.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased 'C' schedule property in a public auction dated 19.03.1973 and he was in possession of the same. The family members of the respondent Nos.4 to 16 were never in possession of the said land, much less as tenants either under the petitioner or others. They themselves being the owners of the property colluding with each other filed Form No.7 by claiming the petitioner as landlord. The Tribunal without conducting any proper enquiry granted occupancy right in favour of the respondents. He also contended that since there is no landlord and tenancy relationship between the petitioner and respondents as on 01.03.1974, the land claimed by them did not vest with the government, as such, the grant made in favour of the respective respondents is not sustainable under law.

7. He further contended that ever since from the date of issuance of Sale Certificate issued on 23.03.1973 pursuant to auction purchase, the petitioner is in cultivation of the B and C schedule properties. He also contended that the impugned orders were passed behind the back of the petitioner without notice to him. The alleged enquiry conducted by the Land Tribunal is not as per Rule 17 of KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS RULES . Accordingly, he prays to quash the impugned order.

8. Per contra, the contesting respondents submits that, the writ petition is not maintainable solely on the ground of delay and laches since the petitioner challenged the impugned orders of the year 1981 after lapse of three decades, that too without explaining any proper reasons for condon