J B KARKAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this petition is directed against an order made by the land tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 had filed form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of s. No. 42 of nitte village. He showed the landlord of the land as c.s.i. trust association (ex. U.b.m.c. trust association). Respondent No. 5 described his profession to be of pastor. The pahani disclosed that the cultivator is a basel mission church right from the year 1967-68 onwards and through its present administrator rev. "so and so." it obviously means' that the lands were held by the pastor for and on behalf of the owners of the land and he was not cultivating the land on his own as a tenant. In the circumstances, when the pastor was not cultivating the land on his own but held land for and on behalf of the owner as administrator thereto merely administering the affairs, question of his being either a 'tenant' or 'deemed tenant' would not arise at all. In that view of the matter, the tribunal could neither have entertained the application in form No. 7 filed by respondent No. 5 nor considered the same. In that view of the matter, the entire proceedings before the tribunal will have to be quashed whatever may be the disputes between the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 and 5 in regard to the ownership or otherwise of the land in question. However, Sri V. Tarakaram, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5 urged that the impugned order was made by the tribunal on 17-9-1981 but this petition is filed on 21-2-1989, long after the order was made.

(2.) we do not think delay in this case would very much matter as in our view the tribunal had no jurisdiction at all to deal with this matter. Second thing we may also notice is that notice sent through registered post is addressed to the administrator, u.b.m.c. but it has been received by assistant property manager, c.s.i. trust association, Karnataka southern diocese.

(3.) in the circumstances, u.b.m.c. had no notice of the proceedings at all in the case. It cannot be ruled out that they were not interested parties in the matter whom the petitioners claim to present. In that view of the matter also we do not think delay in this case would come in the way of entertaining the petition or dealing with the matter as we have done. Thus, delay in this case could not matter at all. Petition is therefore allowed and the order made by the tribunal is quashed. The tribunal is restrained from proceeding with the matter on the application filed by respondent No. 5 as per Annexure 'a' by issue of a writ of prohibition. Rule made absolute accordingly.