LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus Y. MOIDEEN KUNHI (DEAD) BY LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 392 A STATE OF KARNATAKA ,.. - v. Y. MOIDEEN KUNHI (DEAD) BY LRS. Ao.ND ORS. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 11398-11400 of 2009 B MAY 4, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] (- Delay - On the part of Government litigant - Condonation of - Land ceiling proceeding - Land Tribunal c holding that declarants were holding lands in excess of the ceiling limit - Writ petitions challenging the order of Tribunal by declarants and also by State - Writ by declarants withdrawn - State's writ dismissed - Review filed by State alleging fraud on the part of declarant and the Secretary of Land Tribunal - D Delay of 14 years in filing the Review - Dismissal of Review Petition - Special Leave Petition - Delay in filing of 6500 -. days against original order and 300 days against order in Review - Held: Delay, specially in cases where large tracts of land and large sums of revenue involved, is done to protect E unscrupulous litigants at the cost of public interest/public exchequer - Courts though take liberal attitude in delay by Government, yet such attitude can be extended upto a certain limit - s. 5 of Limitation Act must receive liberal construction -f so as to advance substantial justice - In the instant case, in order to protect public justice, delay condoned, subject to / F payment of exemplary cost of Rs.10 Lakhs - SLP to be admitted subject to payment of the cost- Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 5 - Cost - Imposition of as a condition for condonation of delay - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Admission of SLP, subject to payment of cost - Practice and G Procedure- Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961- s.66(4)- Administration of justice. G. Ramegowda, Maior etc. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore AIR 1988 SC 897 - relied on. - H 392 STATE OF KARNATAKA V. 393 Y. MOIDEEN KUNHI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS . .. " State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008 (11) SCALE A 455; Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab 1995(6) SCC 614 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2008(11 )SCALE 455 Referred to. Para 15 B 1995 (6) sec 614 Referred to. Para 16 ..._~ AIR 1988 SC 897 Relined on. Para 19 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petiton c (C ) Nos. 11398-11400 of 2009 From the Judgement and Order dated 07.11.1990 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No. 40425 of 1982, W:P. No. 10920 of 1983 and order dated 26.09.2007 in R.P. 817 of2004 in WP No. 40425of1982, C/WWP No. 10920 D of 1983 Sanjay R. Hegde, for the Appellant(s), The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. E 1. The special leave petitions are directed against the - i.- judgment and order dated 7.11.1990 in Writ Petition No.40425 of 1982 and Writ Petition No.10920 of 1983 and order dated 26.9.2007 in Review Petition No.817 of 2004 passed by a F learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. It appears that there is a delay of more than nearly 6500 days against the original order and about 300 days so far as the review petition is concerned. 2. Before dealing with the question of delay it is necessary G ____ ,, to take note of the State's case before the High Court. 3. The records disclose that the agricultural lands to the extent of 50.89 acres, 30.00 acres, 462.00 acres, 3485.83 were purchased through registered partnership firm Mis Y. Moideen H ~ 394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A Kun hi & Company. All the lands are sub-divisions of Sy. No.146 .,. . of Neriya Village, Puttur Taluk. 4. The declaration under Section 66 (4) of the Karnataka Land Reforms.Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') was B filed by the three partners of the firm i.e .. respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 herein for determination of the excess holding. In the very declaration it is stated that the lands being the plantation lands, are exempted under Section 104 of the Act. It is further i • mentioned therein that all the declarants are the partners of the firm, having 1/3rd share in the properties purchased and that c the declarants have furnished the declaration without prejudice - to their contentions that the provision of the Act and the provisions of the Karnataka Ordinance No. 11 of 1975 are not applicable to the aforesaid lands. The Land Tribunal, Belthangady by the order dated 27.9.1982, held that the declarants are holding the D lands to an extent of 368.16 acres in excess of the ceiling limit. The tribunal opined
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.