K B SATHYANARAYANA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition preferred by three land-holders is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Kadur, dated 24-7-1975 conferring occupancy right in respect of four lands on respondent No.3 under SC.48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

(2.) Two main grounds urged in support of the writ petition are First, the decision of the Tribunal is vitiated because the Tribunal relied on its own spot inspection and enquires of the adjacent land-owners on 24-7-1975 at 2 p.m. which were made behind the back of the petitioner. Secondly, one of the Members of the Tribunal, Shri K.R.Honnappa is a cousin of the third respondent and that the participation of the said Honnappa, who is biased in favour of the third respondent, has vitiated the proceedings.

(3.) No counter-affidavit has been filed either by the Tribunal or by the third respondent, denying the relationship between Shri K.R.Honnappa, Member of the Tribunal, and the third respondent. There is also no denial of the allegation that the spot inspection referred to in the order of the Tribunal was held behind the back of the petitioners and without notice to them. Before the Land Tribunal, an objection was raised by the third petitioner Seethamma on the ground that Sri K.R. Honnappa is a close relation of the applicant (third respondent). The exact relationship is also stated in the statement of objections. It is stated that the said K.R.Honnappa's father and the father of the third respondent are brothers and that the said Honnappa and the third respondent are on good terms. The allegation made in this writ petition that the said Honnappa had throughout participated in the proceedings has not been disputed. The order passed by the Tribunal and produced in this case does not bear the signature of the said Honnappa. If, in fact, the said Honnappa had not participated and kept himself out from the very commencement of the proceedings, it should have been so stated in the order. A counter-affidavit should have been filed supporting such a stand. When one of the parties is closely related to a Member of the Tribunal, it is clear case of bias. The observance of the rules of natural justice requires that there should be fair hearing and fair hearing means that a person who is closely related to a party ought not to preside over a Tribunal. If such a person participates in the proceedings of the Tribunal and does not keep himself out from the commencement, the proceedings are clearly vitiated.