CHALLA VENKATA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Respondent 4 is served and unrepresented. It appears that despite efforts, the respondents 3 and 5 have not been served but, I am not delaying the disposal of the proceeding on that ground because the affected party who is required to be heard is represented by the learned Government Advocate and he has been heard in detail. However, after remand the tribunal shall take necessary steps to ensure that all the necessary parties or their legal representatives have notice of the proceeding.

(2.) THIS is an unusual case where the petitioners contend that they had filed their application before the Tribunal for the grant of occupancy rights, and according to them, despite a long lapse of time, the cases were not taken up and they were under the impression that because the opposite parties were influential persons, that their cases have been put into cold storage. They filed writ petitions before the High Court and obtained a direction for the expeditious disposal of their cases whereupon, the Tribunal took up the same and after hearing the case passed a detailed speaking order dated 10-12-1993. The interesting aspect about this order is that the Tribunal in the first instance records a finding that the applications were not filed within the prescribed period of time and that therefore, the same are liable to be rejected. Thereafter, despite having held that the applications were not maintainable the Tribunal has proceeded to examine the case on merits and has recorded a prima facie finding which appears to be in favour of the petitioners. However, in view of the fact that they were disqualified on the earlier ground, the Tribunal has refused to grant occupancy rights.

(3.) THE petitioners' learned Advocate has relied heavily on the report of the Tahsildar who has admitted that the papers in question were found in the office of the Tribunal and it is his submission that this is sufficient proof of the fact that the petitioners had in fact applied for the grant of occupancy rights. He further states that if the petitioners had applied late or if there were any other infirmities that these would have been recorded or that the petitioners should have been informed and in the absence of any such record, that it will have to be presumed that the applications were received and through some default were not processed and that this was the reason for the delay. In this view of the matter, he submits that the petitioners cannot be prejudiced because of any errors committed by the office of the Tribunal and he reinforces his argument by pointing out that it would he a grave miscarriage of justice if the petitioners who on merits are entitled to the grant of occupancy rights are disqualified due to no fault of theirs. His submission is that on the basis of this record that this Court should revise the order of the tribunal and confirm the findings to the effect that the petitioners are entitled to the grant of occupancy rights.