PRAKASH BABU RAO PUNDAPAL Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order dated 28. 2. 1989 passed by the Land Tribunal, Belgaum, and the question that is raised in this petition is mainly whether the subject land in S. No. 43 of Honnihal village is mere a grass growing land or a cultivable agricultural land. The petitioner challenges the impugned order in his capacity as a trustee and successor in interest on behalf of Shri Maruthi Devasthana, Modaga, and the grievance of the petitioner is that the Land Tribunal, by its impugned order, could not have granted occupancy rights in favour of R-3 to R-8.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting R-3 to R-8.

(3.) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the very same order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 28. 2. 1989 was challenged in W. P. No. 37541/1997 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 4. 8. 1999. Therefore, the present writ petition challenging the very same order is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents drew my attention to the decision of this court in the case of D. Sangya Naik Vs. Department of Telecom, New Delhi, reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1874.