K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) AT Maridasanabally village of Pavagada taluk, Tumkur Dist. , there is a group village panchayat of the dame name (hereinafter referred to us the 'panchayat') which is the petitioner before me, constituted and functioning Under the provision of use car. Village Panchayats and Local Boards act, 1959 (Kar. Act 10 of 1959) there after referred to as the Act exercing jurisdiction over the village inclused in that Panchayat, one of which is Kathikyathanahally village. ( 2 ) ON 10-7 1979 respondent No. 2, a resident of Kathikyathanahally village who owns a parcel of land in the village applied to the Panchayat under S. 53 of the Act for a building licence to construct a building on his land. On 25 7 1979 the panchayat by its resolution of that date (Annexure A) rejected the said application of respondent No. 2 primarily on the ground that there was a proposal to acquire the said land for a public purpose. An Application made by respondent No. 2 on 29-8-1979 to reconsider its earlier resolution was also rejected by the Panchayat on 16 11 -1979 (Annexure- D ). ( 3 ) AGAINST the resolution of the Panchayat refusing licence, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal under S. 53 (4) of the Act before the Asst. Commissioner. Madhugiri sub-Divn. , Madhugiri (hereinafter referred to as the AC') without impleading the panchayat as a party respondent to that appeal. On an examination of the contention urgel by respondent No. 2, but with out notifying and providing an opportunity of hearing to the Panchayat on his appeal the AC by his order dt. 20-5-1980 (Annexure E) allowed the appeal of respondent No, 2 and directed the Secretary of tue panchayat to issue him a building licence. ( 4 ) AFTER some intermediate proceedings, the narration of which is not very necessary, the Panchayat challenged the aforesaid order of the AC in a revision petition under S. 207 of the Act before the Kar. Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal' in Revn. Petn. No. 28 of 1981 inter alia contending that the AC acted illegally in allowing the appeal ,of respondent No. 2 without notifying and providing it an opportunity of hearing. ( 5 ) ON an examination of the contentions urged before It, the Tribunal by its order dt. Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal' in Revn. Petn. No. 28 of 1981 inter alia contending that the AC acted illegally in allowing the appeal ,of respondent No. 2 without notifying and providing it an opportunity of hearing. ( 5 ) ON an examination of the contentions urged before It, the Tribunal by its order dt. 15 12 1981 (Annexure-H), holding that the Panchayat was entitled for a notice and an opportunity of hearing, has dismissed its revision petition on the ground that that failure had not occassioned miscarriage of justice to it. Hence, this petition by the petitioner under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has urged that the tribunal having rightly held that there was violation of the principle of audi alteram partem, one of the basic elements of natural justice, was bound to set aside the order of the AC and remit the case to him for fresh disposal. ( 7 ) IN justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal, respondent No. 2 has filed his return. ( 8 ) SRI D. L. N. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal having rightly held that there was violation of the principle of audi alteram partem, was bound to set aside the order and remit the case to the AC for fresh disposal without holding that the same had not occasioned miscarriage of justice, though miscarriage of justice was implicit in such a case. In support of his contention Sri Rao strongly relied on the rulings of the Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton mills y. Union of India (1), S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (2), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of india (3) and Division Bench rulings of this Court in Jagadish Patil v. State (4) and Muniyallappa v. Krishnamurthy (S ). ( 9 ) SRI A. V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for re pondent No. 2 in justifying the impugned order, urged that there was no lis between the Panchayat and his client and the former as an adjudicating body could not claim notice of the appeal filed by the latter and an opportunity of hearing before the AC. ( 9 ) SRI A. V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for re pondent No. 2 in justifying the impugned order, urged that there was no lis between the Panchayat and his client and the former as an adjudicating body could not claim notice of the appeal filed by the latter and an opportunity of hearing before the AC. ( 10 ) ON the contention urged for the petitioner, it was entitled to a notice and an opportunity of hearing in the appeal of respondent No. 2 before the AC, the Tribunal accepts the same, but declines to interfere with the order of the AC on Che ground that it had not occasioned any miscarriage of justice to it. At this stage, i will assume that the conclusion of the tribunal that the Panchayat was entitled for a notice and an opportunity of bearing is correct and examine whether its refusal to interfere on the ground that It had not occasioned miscarriage of justice was legal. ( 11 ) WHAT is the effect of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem, one of the basic elements of natural justice, is no longer open to doubt. On that question, the Supreme Court and this Court in the rulings relied on by Sri Rao, have ruled that the decision rendered in violation of audi alteram partem was void and was no decision at all and such a decision was liable to be set aside solely on that ground. Unfortunately, the Tribunal in resting its conclusion and refusing to interfere with the order of the AC has ignored the binding rulings of the Supreme court and this Court and its decision to that extent cannot, therefore, be supported. But, this conclusion does not neces' sarily answer the contention urged by respondent No. 2. ( 12 ) AN application for a building licence has to be made under S. 53 of the act to the Panchayat, which means the power to grant or refuse that application vests with the Panchayat. While deciding an application for a licence, the Panchayat acts as an arbiter, Court or a Judge or an adjudicatory body. On any principle of law, it is somewhat incongruous to conceive that the Panchayat becomes a party to the proceedings or there is a lis between it and the applicant that makes an application for licence. While deciding an application for a licence, the Panchayat acts as an arbiter, Court or a Judge or an adjudicatory body. On any principle of law, it is somewhat incongruous to conceive that the Panchayat becomes a party to the proceedings or there is a lis between it and the applicant that makes an application for licence. ( 13 ) AS a rule, an adjudicatory body cannot and does not have any interest in the cause that is decided by it. The one and the only interest the adjudicatory body should evince is to decide the cause fairly, justly and in accordance with law without in any way concerning itself with the result of its order or the further legal proceedings that may ensue against its order. In the absence of an express provision in the law creating the very adjudicatory body, the principles of common law, practice, procedure and justice do not require a notice and an opportunity of hearing to be provided to the adjudicatory body in an appeal or other legal proceedings directed against its own decision. Bearing these well settled principles, it is necessary to examine the Act and the rules. ( 14 ) S. 53 (4) of the Act piovides for an appeal against a resolution, decision or order of the Panchayat before the AC of the area. S. 53 (4) does not spell out the procedure to be followed by the AC or the extent of power he may exercise in an appeal before him. ( 15 ) WHEN an appeal lies to the AC without placing any limitation on the exercise of the appellate power, such power is co-extensive with that of the, original authority in dealing with an application for a building licence. In reversal of the resolution of the Panchayat, it is open to the AC to grant a licence to the appellant before it. ( 16 ) ON receipt of an application for a building licence the Kar. Pancbayatt control of Erection of Buildings Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') empower the Panchayat to call for objections for the proposal made before it, which is required to be considered by it and a decision taken thereon. ( 17 ) ON the terms of the Rules, neighbours, person claiming ownership rights over the property and others can file objections. ( 17 ) ON the terms of the Rules, neighbours, person claiming ownership rights over the property and others can file objections. R. 12 of the Rules requires the panchayat not to grant an application for a licence, if there is a depute as to title to the property and regulate the same in conformity with the decree of a Civil Court. ( 18 ) THE Act and the Rules do not provide for a notice and an opportunity of hearing to the Panchayat in an appeal filed before the AC by the unsuccessful applicant before the Panchayat. On the other hand, the Act and the Rules exclude any notice and hearing to the Panchayat. From this it follows that the claim of the panchayat for a notice and a bearing before the AC was ill founded and the Tribunal in accepting the same without examination, has acted illegally. ( 19 ) AS I have found that the Panchayat was not entitled for a notice and hearing, no question of prejudice arises on the failure of the AC to notify the Panchayat. In this view the conclusion of the Tribunal thereto does not call for my examination. ( 20 ) SRI Gangadharappa took serious exception to the ground on which the panchayat bad refused licence to respondent No. 2. ( 21 ) SRI Rao refuting the contention of sri Gangadharappa sought to justify the ground on which the panchayat had refused licence. ( 22 ) THE one and the only reason on which the Panchayat had refused a building licence to respondent No. 2 was that there was a proposal to. acquire the land for a public purpose. ( 23 ) AS on the day the Panchayat passed its resolution, thereafter or even to this day, proceedings for acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act have not so far been initiated. The fact the Panchayat has submitted proposals for acquisition, which had once been rejected can not be construed as proceedings for acquisition are pending under the Laud Acquisition Act. An acquisition proceeding can be said to be pending only when the prcceedings under S. A of the Act has been published by the competent authority and not before that. The fact the Panchayat has submitted proposals for acquisition, which had once been rejected can not be construed as proceedings for acquisition are pending under the Laud Acquisition Act. An acquisition proceeding can be said to be pending only when the prcceedings under S. A of the Act has been published by the competent authority and not before that. ( 24 ) THE Act and the Rules do not empower the Panchayat to reject an application for a building licence on the ground that it proposes to acquire that very land for a public purpose. An application for a building licence cannot be rejected or kept pending on such a ground. In this view also, the one and the only reason on which the Panchayat bad refused licence to respondent No. 2 is manifestly illegal. ( 25 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I hold that the order of the Tribunal , docs not call for my interference, for entirely different reasons. I therefore, dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule issued in this case. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .