ORDER
Patil, J.
1. In this petition, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 15.3.1982 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. INA. JKH. 15/79-80. Further, they sought for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to transmit the application contained in Annexure-B to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore to be considered along with other applications.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.
3. The land bearing Sy.No. 63 and 147 of Jakkanahalli village are Darga Inam lands granted for the purpose of Darga of the well known saint viz., HAZRATH SYED SHAH SADRUDDIN HUSSAINI MAKKAN situated at Nelamangala. The petitioners are the descendants of the said saint Hazrath Syed Shah Sadruddin Hussaini. They are the hereditary Sajjada Nasheen of the Darga and performing all the daily, weekly, monthly and annual services and duties of the Darga including the annual Gandna Urs, Ziyarath etc. The lands in question are the Darga Inam lands granted to the Darga by the Maharaja of Mysore in the name of the Manager-ancestors of the petitioners. As the lands were darga Inam lands, the petitioners' father had filed application for regrant of the lands, which had come up for consideration before the land Tribunal on 15.3.1982. Land Tribunal recorded the statement of the petitioner's father who has stated that he had never cultivated the land in question and he prayed that his application may be rejected. Thereafter, the Tribunal held that on verification of the RTC found the names of one Dodda Rangaiah Nagaiah, Siddappa and etc. and therefore rejected the request of the petitioner's father. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.3.1982, the petitioners have presented this Writ Petition.
4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, the impugned order is one without jurisdiction since the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 under which the land Tribunal has exercised its powers has been declared as invalid by this Court in its judgment dated 24.4.1992 reported in ILR 1992 KARNATAKA 1827 which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP NO. 3246 & 3247 of 1993 by its order dated 8.8.1996. It is further submitted that during the life time of their father and after his death, the petitioners were under the impression that the proceedings in respect of Sy.No. 147 would be continued. When the petitioners received notice from the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in No. LRF INM 6/2002-03 and after verification they came to know about the order of the land Tribunal. Therefore, he has submitted that there js no delay as such was caused in filing the Writ Petition. If the prayer of the petitioners is considered no prejudice will be caused to the other side. He has further submitted that the land Tribunal has not conducted any enquiry as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Act, and as such, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable and it is liable to be dismissed.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for respondent, inter-alia, contended and justified the order passed by the land Tribunal. He has submitted that the impugned order was passed as early as in the year 1982 and the petitioners have presented this Writ Petition on 9.2.2003 and there is an inordinate delay more than 21 years in filing the Writ Petition. The reasons assigned by the petitioners for condoning the delay is not satisfactory and much credibility cannot be given to the explanation offered by the petitioners. Therefore, he has submitted that on the ground of delay and laches, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have perused the impugned order passed by the land Tribunal carefully, re-evaluated the entire material available on records, re-assessed the matter with the assistance of the learned Counsel for both parties.
7. The land Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners' father on the basis of the statement made by him stating that he under mistaken notion has filed an application for grant of occupancy rights and at no point of time he is cultivating the said land and requested to reject his application. The said statement was on the record of the Tribunal. Further, the land Tribunal has stated that on perusal of the RTC extract the names of one Doddarangaiah, Nagaiah and others were found showing that they are cultivating the said land. Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal, as it has passed the order after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner's father. Hence, the question of interfering with the same at this stage is not at all permissible.
8. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1992 Karnataka 1827 which was confirmed by the Supreme Court as stated supra, is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because as on the date of passing the order, the land Tribunal has got the power. Therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioners Counsel has no substance.
9. Further, it is significant to note that the petitioners themselves have stated in para 10 of the Writ Petition while explaining the delay in filing the Writ Petition that they came to know about the order after the receipt of the notice from the Deputy Commissioner, wherein the application of one Sri Dodda Rangaiah and others were considered for regrant of the land in question. The petitioners have not impleaded those persons as necessary parties in this petition. Hence, the petition is liable to be rejected for nonjoinder of the necessary parties.
10. Yet another reason, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected at threshold on the ground of delay and laches because the impugned order was passed by the land Tribunal as early as on 15.3.1982 that too on the basis of the statement given by the petitioners' father. The explanation offered by the petitioners for condoning the delay in filing the Writ Petition is not satisfactory. Much credibility cannot be given to the explanation offered by the petitioners. Therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also.
For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
The Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.