IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. L. MANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJULU W.A. No.6245/2011 [Ljj BETWEEN: DODDANAGOUDA S/O H. BASAVANAGOUDA AGE: 43 YEARS, SRI. GURUKCYVFURESHWARA SADANA, 1ST CROSS. Mi. NAGAR, HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY APPELLANT (By Sri. PRASHANTH.R.KAMMAR : VEERESH R.BUDIHAL ADVs.) AND: 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BELLARY RESPONI)ENTS (B Sri.MAHESH WODEYAR. AGAj THIS WRIT APPE.AL FILED L/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT. PARYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 16/06/2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN RIT PETITION NO.63349 2011. AND FURTHER TO ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING. THIS DAY, K.L.MANJUNATH, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOV ING: JUDGMENT The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.06.2011 in W.P. No.63349/201 1 [LRj is called in question in this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The appellant filed the Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The afore-said order was passed on 24.09.1996 and 14 \ears later, the order of the Land Tribunal was questioned by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition only on the ground of delay and latches. This order is called in question in this appeal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. we do not see am error committed by the learned Single Judge, for the following reasons: :3: 5. Admittedly, the claimants are entitled to hold an extent of 108 acres of land and an area of 34.70 acres has been resumed to the Government and later, the same has been distributed to the land less persons and thereafter, the Writ Petition is filed stating that the appellant’s father was looking after the Land Tribunal proceedings and the appellant was not aware of the same. But, the said ground cannot be construed as sufficient cause to condone the delay of 14 years. When his father was the declarant before the Land Tribunal. when he has not challenged the order. the appellant cannot file a Writ Petition on the ground that he was not aware of the proceedings. When his father was a party and was aware of the legal proceedings. during his life time if he has not challenged the order. the appellant cannot contend that he was not aware of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. :4: If the learned Single Judge has declined to condone the delay of 14 years in filing the Writ Petition. in an intra-court appeal. this Court cannot interfere with such order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd! UDGE JUDGE RKK/ -