Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
CHITRA SHEKARAMMA W/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the absence of a speaking order from the assistant commissioner invalidated the occupancy rights granted. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. delay in filing was justified due to lack of awareness and the continuing possession of land. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. the petitioners were unaware of the prior appeal outcome affecting their rights. (Para 8) |
| 4. the assistant commissioner must re-evaluate the matter expeditiously and justly. (Para 9) |
ORAL ORDER
4. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which reads as under:
6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 6 submit that the impugned order passed by the KAT is of the year 2018 and the present petition filed in the year 2022-2023 is barred by latches and delay and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
8. A perusal of the facts and grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition will indicate that, at para 14 of the petition, the petitioners have averred as under.
9. In my considered opinion the averments made in para 14 of the memorandum of petition constitutes valid and
(vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file pleadings, docum
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
