A SUSHEELA Vs. 1ST LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 23. 6. 1981 passed by the 1st respondent i. e. , Land Tribunal granting occupancy right in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of the land in Sy. Nos. 116/2 measuring 23 cents, 116/1b-1c 10 cents and 100/2 measuring 28 cents of Kemminje village of Puttur Taluk, D. K. on the ground that the impugned order is not a considered order and also not a speaking order. Even though deceased respondent no. 3 has filed form No. 7 but not included the aforesaid three items of the land, the Tribunal conferred occupancy right in his favour even though respondent No. 3 never stated before the tribunal that he is also in possession and enjoyment of the said land as a lawful tenant in respect of 3 items of the land immediately prior to 1. 3. 1974. But the petitioner contended that the tribunal has not assigned any reasons in the impugned order under challenge at Annexure 'a' and failed to apply its judicious mind while confirming the occupancy right. Therefore, the impugned, order under challenge is liable to be quashed since it is illegal, incorrect and unsustainable. But the delay in filing this writ petition has been explained properly and there is violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the L. Rs of deceased respondent No. 3 and the learned H. C. G. P. appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the deceased respondent No. 3 who is stated to be the tenant filed form No. 7 in respect of the other items of the land but not these three items to confirm occupancy right. But the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to confer occupancy right other than the items of the land claimed by such applicant in form No. 7. Therefore, the impugned order under challenge is not a speaking order and it is clear violation of mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. Further, it is contended that merely because at the time of survey it was revealed that the deceased respondent no. 3 was also cultivating the aforesaid three items, therefore on the basis of the spot inspection and on the basis of the survey report, occupancy right granted by the Tribunal without any claim made by respondent No. 3 is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Further, it is contended that no claim has been made by respondent No. 3 for grant of occupancy right in respect of these three items of the land and it is not a speaking order and therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to rehear the arguments and dispose of the case in accordance with law.