IN THE HIGH )URT OF KAKA AT BNGLORE DATED !L!US THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BERS: THE IN’BLE MR.JUS E M.P.SALDANHA !T PETITI NO. 33406/1997 BETWEEN: 1 • Sri.Venkataiah @ Rajappa, s/o late Govindaiah, aged about 80 years. 2. Srj,Govjndaiab S/o Sanjeevalab, aged about 55 years. 3. Naraianaiah S/c Gavaiah, aged about 65 years. 4. Sri.Ohennaiah s/c late Sanj eevaiah, aged about 45 years. (A 11 are residents of Yachenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Obannaraya— patia Takilt, Hassi District). ... PETIONERS (By Sri S .V arayan a Mur thy, Ad vocate •,) AND: 1 • The State of Kamata represented by its 5 ecretary to Goyeent, Revenue Deparnen t, M.S..iildings, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bigalore—56O 001. 2. The Special Deputy Qonmissioner for mains Abolition, Hassan Division, Hassi. 3. The Revenue Deputy Commr. Hassen District, Hassi. 4, Th Land Triinal, represented b y its Secretary, Cbaimarayapatia, Hassan District, 5. The Ohainan, Kamatca Appellate Triina1, Bangalore. .•, RESI’ONDEN (By Sri S.VJaganntb, Addl.Govt,Advocate,,for Respts.,) S e2e t tita tUsl under Artielse 226 ad 271 of the Ccnstitutiai of blia, praying to quash Tide anemre-o dt. 30—9—81 by B-4 etc., This Petitia chg a for prelisinary hearing this day, the Court sale the following:— OMifl —3— I have heard the petitioners’ learned Advocate as also the learned Got.Advocate. The petitioners’ learned Advocate points out to me that the referice In. the order dated 30—9—81 to the petitioners being repreeted by one Rnachandra is obviously incorrect because the petitioners do not have any son or rep-. resentative by that name. Also, learned Advocate points out that if an adverse order was passed In the year 1981, that the pet iticxiers thetnselv es would have agitated the matter further. The learned Govt. Advocate has pointed out that there is 15 years delay in approaching this Court but that has b een explained In. the petition by the petitioners who state that it was only in. the year 1996 when the antries was sought to be altered that they cane to know of the order. Under these circumstances, the delay cannot be held against the petitioners. To my mind, if the peti tioners did not receive any notice end the case was wrongly disposed of, it is only fair that they should be afforded a fresh opporanity of represting their CaEe. 2. The —4-. 2. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, The lmiied order is set aside zd the proceedings are rnided to the Triinal for a fresh decision, In order to obviate any, further problns, the petitioners or their representatives are directed to rain present before the Tribunal on 13—7—1998 and to diligently proceed with the matter on such dates as the Tribunal iay fix. It shall not be necessary for the Tribunal to issue ny notice to the petitioners. 3. This WrIt Petition succeeds to this ext&it. No order as to costs. Sd/ JUDGE / F M.T/* 090698 I I \ L