MUNIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners 21 in number in writ petition No. 32369 of 1993 and the petitioners 8 in number in writ petition No. 36910 of 1993 filed the above writ petitions on a common ground for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent-land tribunal, sidlaghatta taluk, kolar district to dispose of form No. 11 filed by respondents pending before the said tribunal and issue of a direction to distribute the lands in accordance with Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') after finding the surplus lands. Another prayer sought for by them is to prevent the respondents 5 to 8 to cut and remove the eucalyptus trees standing in the lands in question. In writ petition No. 32345 of 1993 the petitioner described himself as a rival tenant in respect of the lands in question and his prayer is to issue a direction to the land tribunal to recall its Order, dated 13-11-1992 under which the land tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of respondents 5 to 8 and to give further direction to club the application filed by the petitioner along with the applications of respondents 5 to 8 and then decide the case in accordance with law.

(2.) though these petitions are filed separately on 9-9-1993 and 26-9-1993 there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of this court that the petitioners have resorted to file these petitions invoking the jurisdiction of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution after a final order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in slap No. 13272 of 1993 on 3-9-1993 bringing an end to the dispute that was existing between the inamdar and the tenants in question. However, the contesting respondents are shown giving different serial numbers from one petition to another and therefore, whenever these contesting respondents are referred, it will be in the serial numbers shown in writ petition No. 32369 of .1993.

(3.) the land owner Sri J.B.Srinivasa Rao who is arrayed as fourth respondent in writ petition nos. 32369 and 36910 of 1993 will be hereinafter referred to as 'owner'; though his si. No. As respondent changes in the other writ petition.