VINAY GOEL Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the 1st Respondent - Land Tribunal to record the Settlement in question and disposed of the Application in Form 7 filed under Sec. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 196. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner argues that speedy justice being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, vide Apex Court decision in HUSSAINARA KHATOON VS. STATE OF BIHAR (1980) 1 SCC 81, keeping the Settlement unconsidered indefinitely militates against this constitutional facet.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the 1st Respondent - Land Tribunal opposes the Petition contending that the settlement of the kind cannot be entertained by the Tribunal since the State is a stakeholder under Sec. 44 and not a signatory thereto. He also points out that by operation of law, all the lands vest with the State and in that light, Settlement cannot be taken cognizance of. Notice to private Respondents is dispensed with since they will have an opportunity of having their say on the claim for settlement before the Land Tribunal.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, when the parties before the Tribunal mention that the lis has been settled, what the Tribunal has to do is adjudge whether such a settlement is legally permissible or not. This having not been done, for a quite long period, Petitioner is justified in complaining before this Court.