VITTAL Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL SUPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point which arises for my consideration and decision relates to payment of court fee on a petition filed; under Article 226 of the Constrtution of India It arises thus: - Respondents-3, 4 and 5 had. made three applications under Section 48-A (1) of the Karnataka, Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to be, hereinafter referred to as the Land Reforms Act), to the Land Tribunal, Supa a Tribunal constituted under the Act, each of them seeking that he may be registered as occupant in respect of the three parcels of lands in the, ownership of the, petitioner. The three applications filed by respts 3 4 and 5, though has been numbered separately, were clubbed together by the' Tribunal for being disposed; of on a common enquiry as the applications contained rival claims for grant of occupancy of the same parcels of lands in. the ownership of the petitioner. In. the course of the commann, enquiry held by the Tribunal in respect of the said three applications, respondents'3, 4 and 5 made statements restricting the claim made by each one of them for grant of occupancy to one of the three parcels of lands referred to above. The Land Tribunal concluded! the common enquiry by making a, common order dated 17.1.1979 determining that each of respondents-3, 4 and 5 was entitled to be registered as an occupant of one of the said three parcels of lands. The owner of the lands has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, and has sought the quashing of the said order of the Land Tribunal by issue of a writ of certiorari. According to him, the proceedings of the Land Tribunal a statutory Tribunal - culminating in the order, the quashing of which is sought in the petition, are since vitiated by illegalities resulting in substantial failure, of justice, he has become entitled to redressal of the injury suffered by him by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226(1) (c) of the Constitution.

(2.) As the office of the High Court has refused to register the petition of the petitioner filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on. the ground of objection that sufficient court fee payable under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, to be referred to hereinafter as the Court Fees Act has not been paid, the petition is posted before me for deciding the point as to whether the, court fee of Rs. 100 - already paid by the petitioner is sufficient or insufficient.

(3.) I shall now consider the said point bearing in mind the arguments advanced by the learned High Court Government Pleader in support of the ground of objection raised by the office of the High Court and by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the ground of objection. The note of the High Court Office reads thus: