NIZAMUDDIN v. MLKiI R UMF

Judgment

3. NIZAMUDDIN 5/0 LATE ABDULRAHEEM SARAKHAJI, AGE: 60 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE1 ABDULRAB, 8/0 LATE ABDULRAHEEM SARAKHAJI, AGE: 58 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, ASPAKAHAMEED, 5/0 LATE ABDULRAHEEM SARAKHAJI, AGE: 45 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE RIO KANCHAGAR LANE, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

5. SARAKHAJI MOHAMMED IQBAL, S/0 ABDUL JALEEL, AGE: ABOUT 62 YEARS, 0CC: AGRI, R/O SHAH BAZAR, BANKAPUR, TQ.SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. ABDULKHADAR, S/0 LATE. VAJARUDDINSAB SARAKHAJI, AGE: 75 YEARS, 0CC: RET.TEACHER. ABDULREHAMAN 8/0 LATE VAJARUDDINSAB SARAKHAJI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s •f) P o i t RI.H F T1ARb A S UI. 7 MAyWL HMEEi) 1, AbD’:LREhzA. K(HdT AGE. 12 VERS. flCC flT HEM I DRA o BD REM TS RU U F LU II C 9 !O MOHA ,LDiS S/fl VkJRUDDI!%A44KJI. AGE 63 YEARS. 0CC: AGRCULTURE SARAKHAJJM’)HAMMED Sfl3AN. ;o MOHAMMED SAK AGE 6 YEARS ‘ 4C Lfl R C Cr AV SRI DINESH M.KLLKA°\T. AD .B’ENT;, .APPELL INTS AND

4. MLKiI R UMF ‘OL MkD S Bf31 ) Rb A s.% I F%RN4 Kb VI1. F ITS SrXRE’14Tc’ tn Pt.’ ThP.IISEKAR-T.rHr 7-;•.ftp.:) r.’•F; t’F PTT’.ty;i “ ‘ :1 ‘ ‘S” “HE Li rRlsr t t F ) ‘S ‘I

4., I ‘pg ‘•1 3 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGHT COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2007 PASSED IN W.P.NO.39782/2002 AS NULL AND VOID BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL. THIS APPEAL COMING FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE DELIVERED KUMAR, J., D.V.SHYLENDRA FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT There is an inordinate delay of 1246 days in filing the appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka

High Court Act, 1961.

2. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 24.09.2007 passed by a learned single Judge this Court in W.P.No.39782/2002, allowing the petition of the writ petitioner-tenant, who had questioned the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hangal, second litigation, insofar it relates to the rejection of his claim for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 3 acres of land lying on the western portion of £4 is,--. . i c i c a a z ÷ a i c - a i c . ? ! i c a i c i c i c a i c t a t r ) D C ) ( — a i i c - a . i c p D C a a i c J ‘ i c a i c , i c a . i c 0 i c a < a a a i c i c : a — a ’ Q ° i c - a - a 0 ( a a i c i c i c P a - a a i c . i c a m 0 ( 0 ( a i c - a 0 . ’ i c a a o a i c a a a : i c a - a i c - ç i c i c c : s i c ! a i c i c i c r - a 0 ( i c — - a 0 i c ) D C a i c o O C 1 0 o C S ‘ - a i c — a — a ) C C - a ) C - a - a a i c a i c a — i c • — a a a - a a - a a i c a i c a i c - a a - a a i a — C i c i c i c a 0 a i c - a i c - a 0 i c a — H a a - a ) C o ‘ a i c 0 ( a a Q ‘ - a a “ - a P ( ( 0 ( - a - a — 0 a - 0 a - a a : i “ c - a 0 i c a ) . n e • — t 0 ( “ i c 0 a - a - a 0 - a i c $ ) ) C i c < 0 0 1 0 o - a - a a — 0 ( i c : ) C o a i c — i c a a i c - a i i c - — a i c - a - a — i c - a - a ) 4 - a — a - a ’ 0 ( a i c i c - a - a D C i c — i c a 0 ( a a i c i c i c - a 0 0 a a ) t C - a a i c - a - a “ a — i c a i c a - a 0 i c 0 0 ( 0 ( i c 0 ( a 0 ( — J h : 0 ( i c I C a a ‘ i c a - a h T - 0 ( a a - a — - a 0 ( 0 i c i c C ‘ ( a C ‘ ( a a h P i c i i c ° i c 0 . i c - a 0 - a - a i c o C i c 0 a i c - a - 4 ? 9 - a - a - a - a i c S a i c 0 - a - a i i - a i c a i c — — i c i c — 0 ( i c : i c i c i c ° o C — i c a a a a a : - a a - a 0 ( 0 i c o a i c i c - a o i c a ‘ - D C 0 ( i c - a 0 — However, received notlce 29O92010 issued by the Land Tribunal, Hangal calling upon them to appear for an enquiry before it. Only on sr I ppearance, they came to k o U e o dec pa sed ( n

24.09 2007 a e p t tion. The a e a f ea this appe n The m ftc 1 a fax ui tenants provis as i a nnd Reforms on and at ndment to the pare which came nit ffect from 01 03,1974 onwards

6. Though learned counsel appellants has not appeared and appellant No 4, uho appeared inpcrson secks adjournment, a declined the iequcst and we looked into the mentc of the applicatices ss well as the appeal. 6

7. We find neither explanation is acceptable nor there is any much merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal as well as the applications both are dismissed.

8. Misc.W.60843/201 1 for condonation of delay and Misc.W.60844/201 1 for stay do not survive for consideration. Dismissed. sdI JUDGE Sal JUDGE MBS/