ALLASAB BALAJI MULTHANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate, the learned Advocate who represents the contesting parties and the learned Government Advocate on merits. Before dealing with the case on merits, it is very necessary for me to point out that the Land Reforms Act was promulgated as a social welfare measure with a particular objective in mind. Between 1974 and the present point of time in the course of the last twenty-five years, the only purpose which this legislation has served is that it has kept the Courts extremely busy and from the type of persons who are appointed to preside over the Tribunals, I am quite confident that they will see to it that the High court is kept well occupied for the next century. The statistics so far indicate that 1,32,900 cases relating to land reforms alone have come up to this High Court and gone back to the Tribunal, many of them several times, a few of them as many as six times. The process is endless because the Tribunal is a special forum invested with special powers and this Court has taken the view that the grant of occupancy rights is a power that can be exercised only by the Tribunal. As a result of this, every time an erroneous order is pointed out to the High Court, there is no option except to remand the case to the Tribunal with a direction that the procedure be followed, the law be observed and that a correct and proper order be passed. It is obvious to me from the quality of the orders passed by the Tribunals which I have had the misfortune to have to deal with in the course of the last one year continuously, that the persons appointed to preside over these tribunals are least interested in understanding the law nor are they interested in observing the procedure prescribed by law. Even in those of the instances where specific directions are given by the Appellate Authority or by this Court, special care is taken to ensure that those directions are not followed. It is very clear that there is a distinct pattern in what is happening to ensure that the litigation goes round in circles and that it never ends. I have repeatedly asked the learned government Advocates who have been appearing in these cases as to whether there are any elementary guidelines for purposes of ensuring that persons appointed in these Tribunals have some legal qualifications and that they are persons of some worthwhile background and integrity. I find that there are absolutely no guidelines, no qualifications and no prerequisites for these appointments and that is the principal reason why orders of this type have been passed and continue to be passed. In my considered view, this is not only a travesty of justice but a "social crime" because these cases concern very poor farmers most of whom are very small land owners who cannot afford either the time or the expenditure of litigation before the Tribunals and courts. If the Government is at all serious about ensuring the welfare objective behind having promulgated the Act, I would like to see corrective action taken along the following lines: (a) By ensuring that duly qualified, experienced persons of integrity are alone appointed on the tribunals; (b) That the Government exercise strict monitoring and control as far as their performance is concerned to ensure that all orders that are passed are in conformity with law and nothing else. The majority of orders passed raise serious doubts about the integrity of the Tribunal members.

(2.) THIS case is another classic example of the horrifying state of affairs that this Court is required to put up with day in and day out when it comes to the orders passed by the Land reforms Tribunals. The petitioner points out to me that he had applied for the grant of occupancy rights and that his claim is supported by documents. The Tribunal has passed a cryptic order which hardly runs into about six lines. The order starts with the narration that the petitioner who is the applicant has applied for the grant of occupancy rights, then states that the records have been perused and concludes with the statement that the rights are granted in favour of respondent 3. The respondent was not even an applicant before the Tribunal. It is not difficult for this Court to understand how and why these things happen and the Government would do well to examine the level of corrupt practices that are prevalent in these proceedings.

(3.) THE order passed is thoroughly unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. Learned Advocate who represents respondent 3 submitted that her client has a claim and I do not desire to say a single word with regard to the respective contentions because the parties who are represented are directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 5-4-1999 at 11 a. m. and if the Tribunal is busy on that date, some other date shall be assigned. The Tribunal shall hear the parties, peruse the records and re-decide the case fairly and correctly and in keeping with the procedure prescribed by law. The parties to maintain status quo in the meanwhile and if any interim orders are necessary, liberty to apply to the Tribunal. The writ petition succeeds.