KRISHNOJI GUNDU KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned advocates for both contesting parties and the learned government advocate on merits.

(2.) THOUGH the cause list shows that the learned government advocate is not on record, because of some contusion, a copy of the proceedings were handed over to the learned government advocate and he has been heard on merits.

(3.) THE appellant claims to be an ex-serviceman and he had filed an application for resumption of the lands on this ground. That application was rejected on 8-12-1976 for certain reasons against which an appeal was filed to the assistant commissioner, who strangely enough returned the papers on the ground that he has no jurisdiction. This was on 15-1-1977. On 17-1-1977 itself the appellant filed an application to the tribunal pointing out that he desires to file an appeal to the assistant commissioner and that the tribunal should wait until the resumption issue is decided. It appears that even though the appeal was filed to the special assistant commissioner, for some strange reason he did not hear it and dispose it of and the record shows that ultimately, the appeal papers went to the tribunal. In the meanwhile, the tribunal after waiting for a considerable period of time, had passed an Order dated 13-6-1977 granting occupancy rights and the tribunal by its Order dated 18-5-1993 has disposed of the appeal on the ground that since the occupancy rights are granted, that nothing survives in the appeal. To add to the state of mess, the appellant has preferred W. P. No. 19114 of 1993 in which both the orders namely, the tribunal's Order granting occupancy rights dated 13-6-1977 and the Order rejecting the appeal dated 18-5-1983 have been challenged in the same writ petition. It is unfortunate that this is the manner in which cases are conducted and on this ground alone, the court ought to have normally dismissed the writ petition but, the end result is that for the fault of the lawyers the client will be put into great difficulty. The learned single judge ultimately heard the parties and confirmed the tribunal's Order granting occupancy rights against which the present appeal has been filed.