Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 255 (KAR)

SANJIVA POOJARY v. SULOCHANA N. NAYAK

1977-12-28

K.S.PUTTASWAMY

body1977
( 1 ) ON a prayer made by respondent-3 for vacating the interim order issued on 10-6-1977, this case was posted for orders before me on 9-12-77. At the request of both the parlies, I heard the case on that day on maris. In order to decide some of the controversies raised in the writ petition, an examination of the original records of the Land Tribunal was necessary. I, therefore, requested Shri B. B. Mandappa, learned High Court govt Pleader, to obtain the records of the Land Tribunal and make them available to the Court. Accordingly, Shri B. B. Mandappa has made available the records of the Land Tribunal on 19-12-1977 on which day they were made available to the learned Counsels for the parties and they were heard again by me. ( 2 ) IN this writ petition, one Sanjiva Poojary who claims to be the son of one Muthu Poojarthi and her legal representative has challenged the order bearing No. TRL 49/1974-75 dt. 30-11-76 of the Land Tribunal, karkala, Dist, S. K. , (Ext. A), conferring occupancy rights on his mother in by. Nos. 66/2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on an extent of 0-22, 0-83, 0-83, 1-23 and 2-62 acres respectively and on an extent of 0-79, 0-49, 0-22 and 1-30 acres in Sy. Nos. 60-10, 66-1, 2, and 6 respectively of Paladka village, Karkala Taluk, in favour of respondent-3. ( 3 ) ON 2-8-1974 Muthu Poojarthi filed an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Karkala, claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos. 60-10, 66-1, 66-2, 66-3, 66-4, 66-5 and 66-6 measuring an extent of 7 acres and 73 cents of Paladka village, Karkala Taluk and that application was registered as No. 49j74-75. In her statement of objections, respondent-3 has asserted that she is the sister of Muthu Poojarthi and that she has also presented an application for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of the very lands for which Muthu Poojarthi has filed her application and that the same has been registered as No. TRL 49]74-75. In the records of the Land Tribunal, I do not find any such application made by respondent-3. In the records of the Land Tribunal, I do not find any such application made by respondent-3. In the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that Muthu Poojarthi died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and that he is the sole heir of his mother and is in actual possession and enjoyment of the lands for which occupancy rights were claimed by his mother. Shri U. L. Nararyan Rao, learned Counsel for respondent-3 did not dispute the death of Muthu Poojarthi ( 4 ) SHRI B. V. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the order of the Land Tribunal is vitiated inter alia on the grounds (1) that the impugned order had been made by the Chairman of the Land tribunal, (2) that the order was not a speaking order, (3) that respondent-3 had not made any application for conferment of occupancy rights, (4) that even if respondent-3 had made an application as stated by her, the same had not been clubbed with the application made by Muthu poojarthi and a joint enquiry had not been held, and (5) that the Land tribunal while conferring occupancy rights on Muthu Poojarthi and respondent-3 had not demarcated the boundaries. Shri U. L. Narayana Rao appearing for respondent-3, the main contesting party, contested every one of the grounds urged by Shri B. V. Acharya. ( 5 ) AN authenticated copy of the order of the Land Tribunal signed by the Secretary and furnished to the petitioner, has been produced by him as Ext. A in the writ petition. In the said copy, is is stated that Shri D. Raghunatha Rao, Chairman of the Land Tribunal, karkala, has signed the order though in the preamble it is stated that the Chairman and three other members viz, Sriyuths A. S. Khurshid hasan, Vasanth Chimlonkar and M. Ramesh were present. Even the two original orders available in the original case file of the Land Tribunal have been signed only by the Chairman Shri D. Raghunatha Rao and not by the other three members who are stated to have been present and the columns where the members are required to sign in the cyclostyled form have been expressly struck off. Even the two original orders available in the original case file of the Land Tribunal have been signed only by the Chairman Shri D. Raghunatha Rao and not by the other three members who are stated to have been present and the columns where the members are required to sign in the cyclostyled form have been expressly struck off. In the copy supplied or in the original copies of the orders of the Land Tribunal, the other three mem' bers who are stated to have been present, have admittedly not signed them and therefore it has to be held that the order has been made only by the Chairman of the Land Tribunal Shri D. Raghunatha Eao, though in the order sheet dt. 30-11-1976 of the Land Tribunal reproduced here- under it appears to me that. the other three members have signed the same. The order sheet dated 30-11-1976 reads thus : 30-11-1976: Survey report is received. Tribunal has concluded that Muthu Poojarthi and Laxmi Poojarthi are entitled to be registered as occupants in regard to following extents of lands of paladka village : ( 6 ) AN application for conferment of occupancy rights is required to be decided by a Land Tribunal consisting of the Chairman and the other members of the Tribunal subject to the quorum prescribed by rule 16 of the Karnataka Land Reform Rules, 1974. Under the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder, power is not conferrred to decide an application for conferment of occupancy rights on the Chairman of the Land Tribunal only and therefore the impugned order made by the Chairman of the Land Tribunal is without jurisdiction and is patntly illegal. In that view, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the case requires to be decided afresh by the tribunal ( 7 ) AS I have found that the impugned order of the Land Tribunal is without jurisdiction and illegal and is liabe to be set aside and has to be remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal, I do not consider it necessary to deal with the other center ions urged by Sri B. V. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, except 'to say that they are not trivial conten ions and require to be examined by the Land Tribunal properly and fully. ( 8 ) IT is settled law that when applications are made by the rival tenants claiming occupancy rights in respect of one and the same land, the concerned Land Tribunal is required to club all the applications, hold a joint enquiry and dispose of them by a common order In that view, it is necessary for the Land Tribunal to club the application if any made by respondent-3 with the application of Muthu Poojarthi and dispose of them together. ( 9 ) I find from the order sheet dt, 16-10-1975 that the statement of the applicant Muthu Poojarthi has been recorded by the Chairman of the land Tribunal Shri D. Raghunatha Rao and the csae has been reserved for orders on that day. From that day'e order sheet, it is not possible to gather as to whether the Chairman alone conducted the enquiry and whether the other members of the Land Tribunal were present. If the enquiry has been conducted only by the Chairman of the Land Tribunal on 16-10-1975 as that would be the impression one gets from a reading of the order shee and that being the only date on which any regular enquiry appears to have been conducted, it is needlese for me to state that the enquiry conducted by the Chairman is without jurisdiction and is illegal. It is necessary for the Land Tribunal whenever it sits and conducts an enquiry, to correctly record as to the members that are present and participate in the conduct of the enquiry to avoid any controversies. In the fresh enquiry to be held, I direct the Land Tribunal to correctly record the names of the Chairman and the other members of the Tribunal that will hear the matter from time to time and decide the same. ( 10 ) AS Muthu Poojarthi has died, it is necessary for the Land Tribunal to permit the petitioner and any other person who claims to be the legal representative of the original applicant to be brought on record and then dispose of the applications made by Muthu Poojarthi and res- pondent-3 if any in accordance with law. ( 11 ) I, therefore, quash the order bearing No. TRL 49/74-75 dt. 30-11- 1976 of the Land Tribunal, Karkala, (Ext. ( 11 ) I, therefore, quash the order bearing No. TRL 49/74-75 dt. 30-11- 1976 of the Land Tribunal, Karkala, (Ext. A) by issue of a writ of ceriorari and direct the Land Tribunal, Karkala, to dispose of the applications made by Muthu Poojarthi and respondent-3 if any in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ( 12 ) RULE made absolute. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .