CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed to challenge the order dated 7-12-1976/17-12-1976 passed by the respondent 3-Land tribunal, Basavana Bagewadi in case No. TNC. SR. 1027, copy as at Annexure-G to writ petition, whereunder the Land tribunal had granted occupancy right to the contesting respondent 1. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Sri C. S. Kothavale and the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 1-Sri V. S. Gunjal. The respondent 2-State and the respondent 3-Land Tribunal, Basavana Bagewadi are represented by Sri S. S. Guttal, the learned High Court government Pleader. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the facts of the case. As adverted to by him, the same are as hereunder: that the contesting respondent 1 filed Form 7 on 22-11-1974 claiming occupancy right in respect of 45 acres 8 guntas in Sy. No. 658 of Chimmalagi Village of Basavana Bagewadi Taluk, copy as at Annexure-D to writ petition and the said claim was once considered by the Land Tribunal and the same was rejected earlier by it on 10-12-1975 by a considered order in tenancy proceedings in No. TNC. SR. 1/1564, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition. That the respondent 1 had filed yet again another form 7 on 4-7-1976 claiming occupancy right in respect of the very same land. The copy of the Form 7 filed for the second time is produced at Annexure-F to writ petition. In consideration of the Second Form 7, the Land Tribunal had granted the occupancy right as claimed by the respondent 1 in passing the order dated 7-12-1976 (in English) and 17-12-1976 (in Kannada), copy as at Annexure-G to writ petition. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that when the Land Tribunal had considered Form 7 at the first instance and passed an order as at Annexure-E to writ petition, whereby it had rejected the claim of the respondent 1 earlier, the land Tribunal would not have considered the claim in the second Form 7 for grant of occupancy right in passing the impugned order. According to Sri Kothavale, the Land Tribunal did not get jurisdiction to pass the impugned order by considering the claim once again in allowing the Second Form 7 in support of such a contention he had also cited before me the reported decision of this Court in Siddappa Appanna and Others v Land Tribunal, Gokak and Another and further an unreported decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 526 of 1992 disposed of on 22-11-1995. He had also cited before me the case reported in (1990)1 SCC 3, (sic), on the point that when the order was passed without jurisdiction the same is non est and a nullity. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal be quashed. ( 5 ) AS against the above argument of Sri Kothavale, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent 1-Sri V. S. Gunjal on the other side argued that even according to the showing of the petitioner himself in the writ petition, the contesting respondent 1 was staying with the petitioner-Mutt and he was serving the Swamiji of the Mutt and was assisting him in the management of the mutt and that there was some bifurcation of the Sy. No. in 658/2 and therefore, the claim was made by the respondent 1 in respect of that bifurcated number. While summing up the argument, Sri Gunjal submitted that at best this Court while quashing the impugned order keep the contentions of the parties as to the right, title and interest on the subject land to be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. ( 6 ) IN the light of the above submissions, the short point for my consideration in the writ petition is whether the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal in the circumstances is just and proper and whether the same is with jurisdiction. ( 7 ) BEFORE dealing with the case properly I have to point out here that when this matter had come up before this Court on an earlier occasion on 23-7-1997, this Court had pointed out to the counsel for the contesting respondent 1, Sri V. V. Gunjal (appearing along with V. S. Gunjal) that there is a Form 7 filed by the respondent 1 on the earlier occasion. It was specifically argued by the Counsel for the respondent 1 on that day that there was no Form 7 filed earlier by the respondent 1 before the land Tribunal. In view of that assertion, the Court directed the respondent 1 to be present before Court on 4-8-1987. On that day the learned Counsel for the respondent 1 sought for time on the ground that he wanted to file an affidavit and it is thus both the said parties hereto had filed affidavits. In the affidavit filed by the respondent 1, he changed his original stand before Court to say that he did file the Second Form 7 but the same was filed by him as the Swamiji of the petitioner-Mutt advised him to get the order made earlier on his Form 7 be reviewed and that he was not knowing the procedure and it is for that reason he had filed Form 7; interestingly enough it was not for applying for the bifurcated Sy. No. 658/2 in the Second Form 7 as argued by his counsel, Sri V. S. Gunjal, for in both the Form 7 filed by him, the extent as well as the survey number that was claimed was common i. e. , 48 acres 8 guntas in Sy. No. 658 of Chimmalagi village of Basavana Bagewadi Taluk. In Para 3 of the affidavit by the respondent 1, he had stated as hereunder: " (3) I respectfully submit that I had filed Form 7 with respect to Sy. No. 658 of Chimmalagi which came to be disposed off on the ground that I was not cultivating the same. It was thereafter that the then Swamiji and the present petitioner advised me to get the same reviewed. I am not knowing the procedure and filed one more Form 7. The notice in the said No. TNC. SR. No. 1027, dated 17-12-1976, was served on both, the late Swamiji and the present petitioner. Thereafter, the land was granted to me. The record discloses that the present petitioner was served. I may submit that I have never played fraud of deception either on the late Swamiji or the Tribunal. The second application was given by mistake for review of the case. Thus the petitioner's contention that he accidentally came to know when he was examining the documents with respect to a ceiling matter is not correct. I may submit that I have never played fraud of deception either on the late Swamiji or the Tribunal. The second application was given by mistake for review of the case. Thus the petitioner's contention that he accidentally came to know when he was examining the documents with respect to a ceiling matter is not correct. The contention that he is in possession of the land is not true as a portion of the land is acquired and submerged. I have produced documents to this effect and compensation amount was also taken by me". ( 8 ) THE petitioner-Mutt had also filed an affidavit to say that the respondent 1 had since admitted that he had filed the second form 7 but denied that the Swamiji of the Mutt had ever advised the respondent 1 to get the earlier order on his Form 7 reviewed and it had further been denied that the petitioner-Mutt was ever served with notice on the claim by him in the Second form 7 filed by him. It has also been denied therein that the brother of the respondent 1 by name Rudraswamy through whom the respondent 1 claimed tenancy is dead as claimed by the respondent 1. In Paras (2), (3) and (5) of the affidavit, the petitioner-Mutt had stated as hereunder: " (2) Now the 1st respondent has admitted in clear terms that he had filed Form 7 earlier seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of a portion of Sy. No. 658 of Chimmalagi village and that the said application came to be rejected. He has also admitted that the present application filed by him in Form 7 for similar purpose in respect of the same portion of the land is a second one. He however contends that it was by way of review. This admission clearly vindicates the stand of the present petitioner. (3) The statement that it was thereafter that the then swamiji and the present petitioner advised me to get the same reviewed contained in Para 3 of the affidavit dated 5-8-1997 sworn to by the 1st respondent is utterly false and the same is stoutly denied. The previous Swamiji has never done the act attributed to him. (3) The statement that it was thereafter that the then swamiji and the present petitioner advised me to get the same reviewed contained in Para 3 of the affidavit dated 5-8-1997 sworn to by the 1st respondent is utterly false and the same is stoutly denied. The previous Swamiji has never done the act attributed to him. The present Swamiji who attained just a majority at the time of his installation as swamiji to the above Mutt was a minor during 1976 when the impugned order came to be passed by the Land tribunal. Moreover, the present petitioner was nobody at that point of time. Therefore, the question of giving any advise by the present Swamiji could not and did not arise. The present Swamiji was just a 7 year old during the year 1976. The falsity of the above statement and the averments contained in Para 3 of the said affidavit of the 1st respondent is apparent on the face of it. Even with regard to the contentions of the 1st respondent regarding service of notice, it is respectfully submitted that said contention is absolutely false. (5) The 1st respondent has contended before the Land tribunal that he had not filed Form 7 on earlier occasion. But he has now come forward to state before this Hon'ble court that he, in fact, had filed Form 7 earlier and that it was dismissed by the Land Tribunal. Having regard to these facts, the contention of the 1st respondent that he did not play any fraud or deception on the late Swamiji of the tribunal is unsustainable". ( 9 ) IN addition to the same, the petitioner-Mutt had also filed an affidavit of Rudraswamy, son of Hiremath to say that he was the brother of the respondent 1 and that the respondent 1 had falsely stated before the Land Tribunal in his evidence that his brother who was claimed to be a tenant in respect of the land died sometime ago and it is for that reason, the respondent 1 had resorted to Form 7 before the Land Tribunal. In Para 1 of his affidavit Rudraswamy claiming to be the brother of respondent 1 had stated as hereunder: " (1) I am the person to whom the 1st respondent in the above case has referred to in his deposition dated 17-12-1976, given by him before the Land Tribunal, basavana Bagewadi Taluk in TNC. SR. No. 1027. The 1st respondent has stated therein that I am dead. It is a false statement. I am very much alive and living with my family members. My son by name S. R. Hiremath is living in bangalore and serving in the Department of Urban development, Government of Karnataka. If my presence is required by the Hon'ble High Court, I am prepared to come and present myself before the Hon'ble Court" ( 10 ) THE above are what had transpired before this Court in view of the controversy that arose before Court at the time of hearing of the case with regard to the filing of Form 7 on two occasions by the respondent 1 before the Land Tribunal and that too when this Court had pointed out to the learned Counsel for the respondent 1-Sri V. V. Gunjal on 23-7-1997, that the signature of the respondent 1 in the First Form 7 signed in english tallies with the signature in the vakalath his party had executed authorising him and the Senior Advocate Mr. Gunjal to represent him before Court in the instant writ petition. ( 11 ) IN this context it is relevant to state that the respondent 1in connection with his claim in the Second Form 7 had also filed a false statement before the Land Tribunal to the effect that he had not filed Form 7 earlier. The said statement of respondent 1 before the Land Tribunal reads as hereunder: "rsjddiq, e355and is> candj 23 and e? 2. rfc. 29-24 ?s and *5 rb ifcacandsj, uoadi^erf. 5tejte> ?j 20-25 5j5drr (*od jandjalsodi tooad2^e?5. ^dd ^ifcjuoa 533fand ssrb sandscandrf ands a e?and sandkjfq^rt oootf jocose^ alberto^ nsort So3t> 55> si> stodj^erf. sdand. sb aa. rt rfa sfcsoerfdb a. rb. 15-23 _0 C5 _fl 13 TJ V^> t^ad ossdi sfcscandi^ti. 3? Aedexi 5andrt So)d siuso^ ossr 352*0^ ^?rt ^c^sia otsr AJB^j tor^ stoos^odj jis> ds3edi oo^ sodi^oc^ arfoj atsr". ( 12 ) NOW I come to the case. sdand. sb aa. rt rfa sfcsoerfdb a. rb. 15-23 _0 C5 _fl 13 TJ V^> t^ad ossdi sfcscandi^ti. 3? Aedexi 5andrt So)d siuso^ ossr 352*0^ ^?rt ^c^sia otsr AJB^j tor^ stoos^odj jis> ds3edi oo^ sodi^oc^ arfoj atsr". ( 12 ) NOW I come to the case. Form the above, it is no longer in dispute that the respondent 1 had filed Form 7 for the second time on 10-12-1975 claiming the very extent of land he claimed earlier in his first Form 7 filed on 22-11-1974. It is well-settled that when the claim was considered earlier by the Land tribunal and the same was rejected, question of considering the very same claim for the second occasion by the Land Tribunal did not arise at all, for the Land Tribunal did not get jurisdiction to entertain the second claim when it had considered such a claim on an earlier occasion and rejected the same by passing a considered order; probably, this has been very well understood by the learned Counsel for the respondent 1-Sri V. S. Gunjal and it is for that reason he submitted very fairly that if this Court were to find fault with the impugned order passed by the Land tribunal, the same be quashed, but the right, title and interest of the petitioner-Mutt as well as the respondent 1 in respect of the subject land be kept open to be decided by the Civil Court. ( 13 ) TO fall back to what had transpired earlier before Court, Is hould state that I have also noticed on 23-7-1997 that the respondent 1 had filed Form 7 at the first instance on 22-11-1974 (xerox copy at Annexure-D to writ petition) by affixing his signature in English, whereas on the second occasion, he had filed Form 7 on 4-7-1976 (xerox copy at annexure-F to writ petition) by affixing his signature in kannada. In fact this was what was pointed out to Sri V. V. Gunjal, the learned Counsel for the respondent 1 appearing along with Sri V. S. Gunjal when it was found out by the Court, the above way in which two Forms 7 came to be filed by the respondent 1, but it was disputed at that stage by the learned counsel. It is thereafter, the affidavit and counter-affidavits referred to above came to be filed. It is thereafter, the affidavit and counter-affidavits referred to above came to be filed. So in the light of what had transpired before the Land Tribunal as well as what had transpired before this Court, I am convinced that the respondent 1 tried to overreach the Land Tribunal and it is because that the impugned order came to be passed by the Land Tribunal to be challenged by the petitioner-Mutt before this Court by filing the instant writ petition. It is therefore obvious that but for it, it would not have been the lot of the petitioner-Mutt to come before this Court to challenge the impugned order. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to for an exemplary cost in this writ petition. ( 14 ) I compute that cost heavily to a sum of Rs. 10,000/-payable by the respondent 1 to the petitioner. When I award that cost, I am conscious enough that this may operate penally, but nevertheless I am not inclined to award anything less. ( 14 ) I compute that cost heavily to a sum of Rs. 10,000/-payable by the respondent 1 to the petitioner. When I award that cost, I am conscious enough that this may operate penally, but nevertheless I am not inclined to award anything less. The reasons are more than one and they are as hereunder: firstly, that the respondent 1 was guilty of suppression of the fact both before the Land Tribunal and to some extent before this Court too to say that he had filed Form 7 on the earlier occasion and that the same came to be rejected at the hands of the Land Tribunal and that he had suppressed that material fact before the Land Tribunal to resort to yet another Form 7 in respect of the very same claim for the second time before the land Tribunal and Secondly, that when it was so found out by this Court on 23-7-1997 and put across to the Counsel it was specifically asserted that no such Form 7 was filed for the second occasion and that when it was again pointed out to the learned counsel Sri V. V. Gunjal that the signature in the first Form 7 as well as the signature in the vakalath that he had executed in the instant writ petition tallies to the last detail, this was once again disputed, whereupon this Court on 23-7-1997, directed the respondent 1 to be present before this Court and that it is thereafter, the respondent 1 had filed an affidavit dated 5-8-1997 resiling from the original stand-by explaining therein that the respondent 1 had filed Form 7 in respect of Sy. No. 658 of Chimmalagi Village earlier but the same came to be disposed of on the ground that he was not cultivating the same and that it was thereafter, the Swamiji of the petitioner-Mutt advised him to get the same reviewed and that as he was not knowing the procedure, he had filed yet another Form 7. No. 658 of Chimmalagi Village earlier but the same came to be disposed of on the ground that he was not cultivating the same and that it was thereafter, the Swamiji of the petitioner-Mutt advised him to get the same reviewed and that as he was not knowing the procedure, he had filed yet another Form 7. Even when this court had found out and pointed out that the Form 7 was in fact filed by him earlier, in filing the above affidavit by respondent 1, an attempt was made before this Court to justify the stand-by taking shelter to say that it is the Swamiji of the petitioner-Mutt who had advised him to get the matter reviewed and it is for that reason the respondent 1 filed the Form 7 on the second occasion. But interestingly enough in the detailed objection statement filed by the respondent 1 as against writ petition, nothing was mentioned about the filing of the Second Form 7 and the so called advice of the Swamiji of petitioner-Mutt to get the earlier order of Form 7 reviewed and from the said stand I am convinced to say that the respondent 1 made yet another feeble attempt to overreach this Court too, to justify his stand. Thirdly, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to me that the petitioner had ventured to do all the above only to get the occupancy right from the Land Tribunal in respect of large extent of land by one way or the other, for the lands in question since submerged, a big sum by way of compensation was lying in deposit with the Civil Court in a Land Acquisition case to be disbursed to the owner of the subject land and with the impugned order came to be passed illegally in his favour he had since collected the said sum from the Civil Court as he had stated in Para 3 of the affidavit quoted in Para 7, supra. In so doing it appears to me that the respondent 1 had gambled to collect a big sum in deposit and according to his own showing he had since collected the sum. That being the case, the conduct of the respondent 1 is nothing short of an adventurous litigant gambling for a big gain to which he was not legally entitled to. That being the case, the conduct of the respondent 1 is nothing short of an adventurous litigant gambling for a big gain to which he was not legally entitled to. It is common knowledge that gambling for a big gain at times causes big loss too in the bargain. That is what respondent 1 has suffered in the awarding of heavy cost now in the hands of this court; no doubt he may suffer thereto, but none can help it, for that is the way he chose in the matter of the litigation in hand, lastly, yet another purpose in awarding the heavy cost to the respondent 1 is to deter him from venturing into such acts in future and further to send a message that none can try to overreach Courts and take a judicial proceedings as playful and a farce to do and undo things for gain at the cost of another and to put another to peril and penury, totally unmindful of the solemnity in the matters of judicial proceedings before Courts. ( 15 ) IN the result, I pass the following: The impugned order dated 7-12-1976 (in English) and dated 7-12-1976 (in English) passed by the Land Tribunal, Basavana bagewadi, respondent 3 herein in case No. TNC. SR. No. 1027, copy as at Annexure-G granting occupancy right in respect of 29 acres 24 guntas in Sy. No. 658 of Chimmalagi Village, Basavana bagewadi Taluk, is quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent 3-Land Tribunal with a direction to pass the considered order in the matter of claim of the respondent 1 in Form 7 filed for the second time in the light of the order herein passed. It is made clear that the remand of the matter herein made is only to pass the considered order on the said Form 7 and nothing beyond, for it is within the domain of the Land Tribunal either to allow or reject the claim of the parties either in Form 7 or otherwise. The Land Tribunal shall do that exercise after issuing notices to the parties. ( 16 ) THE writ petition therefore succeeds and accordingly allowed with exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner who is at liberty to recover the same from the respondent 1 in the process known to law. The Land Tribunal shall do that exercise after issuing notices to the parties. ( 16 ) THE writ petition therefore succeeds and accordingly allowed with exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner who is at liberty to recover the same from the respondent 1 in the process known to law. ( 17 ) IN view of the above order, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondent 3-Land Tribunal at the earliest. --- *** --- .