BHAGIRATHI AMMA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are land owners. They have presented this writ petition against the order of the Land Tribunal, Udupi, allowing the application filed by respondent-2 in Form No. 7 read with S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and directing conferment of occupancy rights of the petitioners' lands in his favour under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) Facts: Respondent-2 filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Udupi, claiming occupancy rignts in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 43/4 and 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 43/6 in Nanchar village, Udupi Taluk. Respondent-2's brother Rama Pujari also filed a similar application claiming occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid lands and also lands in Sy. No. 43/1 of the said village. The petitioners resisted the claims of respondent-2 and his brother. Their case was that though respondent-2 and Rama Pujari were tenants only in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 43/6 and in respect of 42 cents of land in Sy. No. 42/2, they falsely claimed tenancy in respect of another extent of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 43/6 and also in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 43/1 and 43/4 and in those circumstances the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Coondapur in O.S. 220 of 1974. In the said suit respondent-2 and Rama Pujari gave up their claim of tenancy and on the basis of the joint memo filed by the petitioners and respondent-2 and his brother, who were defendants in the said suit, permanent injunction was issued against them restraining them from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the lands specified above. The petitioners also further stated that after the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1974, came into force, Rama Pujari filed an application under S. 3 of the said Act before the Principal Munsiff, Coondspur, praying for the reopening of the suit by setting aside the alleged consent decree dated 3-7-1974 and to refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal and even that application was dismissed by the Munsiff by his order dated 17-5-1975 (Ext.-B) and no appeal was preferred against the said order either by Rama Pujari or by respondent-2 to District Court under S. 118 of the Act and, therefore, the consent decree as well as the order passed by the Munsiff as aforesaid have become final and the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the application presented by res- pondent-2 and Rama Pujari. The petitioners also requested for clubbing the applications of Rama Pujari and respondent-2 as some of the lands claimed by them are common and to dispose of the same together. The Land Tribunal rejected the, preliminary objection of the petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the application of respondent-2 and decided the case in favour of respondent-2 by its order dated 19-5-1976 (Ext.-F) keeping the application of Rama Pujari pending. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Land Tribunal, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.

(3.) Sri B. P. Holla, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged the following two contentions: