ORDER T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—All these writ petitions are connected in as much as the property involved namely 9 acres 12 guntas of Binnamangala, Manavartha Kaval, Krishnaraja Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in Sy. No. 4/1 is the same in all the above writ petitions. 2. Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991 is filed by one Krishnamurthy which was converted from CP No. 2429 of 1991 in turn referable to LRA No. 192 of 1986 pending on the file of the erstwhile Appellate Authority, Bangalore Urban. The order assailed therein dated 30.10.1981 was passed in LRF No. 1681 of 1974-75 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner-deceased for grant of occupancy right in respect of Eastern portion of Sy. No. 4/1. Against that order an appeal was filed before the aforementioned Appellate Authority, on the abolition of which the matter stood transferred to this Court and was given the aforementioned writ petition number. 3. Writ Petition No. 17833 of 1993 filed by R. Srimanarayana, Writ Petition No. 20220 of 1993 filed by one R. Jayaprakash, Writ Petition No. 26403 of 1993 filed by D.R. Raghavendra and Writ Petition No. 23087 of 1993 filed by P. Dhanalakshmi, P. Sudan and Madan, widow and sons of Panduranga Naidu are all against order of the Tribunal Bangalore South Taluk LRF 3627 of 1976-77 dated 12.11.1986. Though the order was passed against Raghavendra Naidu, the other Petitioners who are the brothers and brothers' widow and sons of the said Panduranga Naidu have also questioned the order on the ground that all of them are interested in the land and their rights have been affected. 4. Let us consider the facts of the first writ petition. For the purpose of convenience I propose to refer to the parties by their names in the judgment. The first writ petition which is mentioned supra is referable to Writ Petition No. 1783 of 1982 one B.M. Krishnamurthy since deceased had claimed that he filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy right before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore, South Taluk under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. (A) Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991 filed by Krishnamurthy claiming occupancy rights. 5. It is claimed that Sy. No. 4/1 measuring 17 acres 13 guntas situated in Binnamangala, Manavartha Kaval, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, originally belonged to the Arch bishop of Bangalore the third Respondent therein. (A) Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991 filed by Krishnamurthy claiming occupancy rights. 5. It is claimed that Sy. No. 4/1 measuring 17 acres 13 guntas situated in Binnamangala, Manavartha Kaval, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, originally belonged to the Arch bishop of Bangalore the third Respondent therein. The Eastern portion thereof measuring 9 acres 12 guntas was leased by the Arch bishop to the Petitioner Krishnamurthy's father late Muniswamappa in 1945 and the Petitioner's father was cultivating the same personally till his death. Thereafter, the Petitioner came into possession of the same and was personally cultivating the same by raising ragi jowar crops year after year till few years earlier till 1982. Since the Petitioner found that the land could be better used as a plot for stocking crop for drying crops and for thrashing crops, the Petitioner had been using the same for all these purposes during the proceeding many years to 1982 that the year of filing of the writ petition. 9 acres 12 guntas out of the entire extent has always been used as agricultural land either for raising crops or for other agricultural operations. The land could never be deemed to be non-agricultural land. The Petitioner claimed that he is the agricultural tenant of this land. This extent of 9 acres 12 guntas is separated from the remaining extent by a bund. 6. It is further alleged in the said petition that in Form No. 7 filed by the Petitioner, he did not mention the boundaries for the extent of 9 acres 12 guntas which is a part of Sy. No. 4/1. Consequently, another application was filed on 26.2.1981 mentioning the boundaries. The full description of the property as given in the second Form No. 7 is as follows: Survey No. Extent 4/1 (Portion) 9-12 Acres EAST: Abubakers property and Railway Track. WEST: The Western portion of the same Survey number in which sites have been formed by Shri D. Rangadhamulu Naidu. NORTH: Sy. No. 107 belonging to the Petitioner, Sy. No. 108 of Byappanahalli and] Nala. SOUTH: 7. It is further claimed by the Petitioner-Krishnamurthy that the 4th Respondent in that writ petition one D. Rangadhamulu Naidu appears to have purchased the Western portion measuring 8.01 acres under registered Sale Deed dated 5.7.1962. NORTH: Sy. No. 107 belonging to the Petitioner, Sy. No. 108 of Byappanahalli and] Nala. SOUTH: 7. It is further claimed by the Petitioner-Krishnamurthy that the 4th Respondent in that writ petition one D. Rangadhamulu Naidu appears to have purchased the Western portion measuring 8.01 acres under registered Sale Deed dated 5.7.1962. The 4th Respondent and his father were well known Excise contractors and the 4th Respondent himself was producer of several films under the name and style of Shyamprasad Movies. For one of the film namely 'Bhakthakanakadasa' he received a gold medal awarded by the Government of Karnataka. The 4th Respondent was also running several bars in Malleswaram, Rajajinagar, Central Street and Yeshwanthpur. He was also a very old member of the Century Club. The 4th Respondent (Rangadhamulu Naidu) purchased Western portion with the sole idea of making a private layout and allotting it to various purchasers to earn huge profits. Despite knowing that the Petitioner is an agricultural tenant in respect of the Eastern portion, the Sale deed was obtained from the Arch Bishop with the sole idea of laying out that land into plots. Consequently, the sale is void being opposed to Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is further claimed by the Petitioner that the 4th Respondent showed him a declaration cum affidavit filed by the 4th Respondent before the Additional Second Munsiff wherein, he has mentioned about the tenancy of the Petitioner. The said affidavit was filed as Annexure-C to the writ petition. The affidavit however is silent about the area in the Eastern portion which is claimed as 9 acres 12 guntas. In the affidavit a mention has been made that the 4th Respondent had carved out certain sites as being allotable to the Petitioner towards his portion of his land but it is claimed that part of the affidavit is incorrect and the Petitioner never accepted such a fact. Further the 4th Respondent did not make out any layout in the portion of the land in the possession of the Petitioner. He could not have also made such a layout as it was the claim of the Petitioner that he was in effective possession of his land. Further the 4th Respondent did not make out any layout in the portion of the land in the possession of the Petitioner. He could not have also made such a layout as it was the claim of the Petitioner that he was in effective possession of his land. No permission of the authorities also appears to have been obtained by the 4th Respondent for making sites in the land to the extent of 9 acres 12 guntas in the possession of the Petitioner. (There appears to be contradictory submissions in paras-5 and 6. In para 5, the sale is only in respect of 8.01 acres but in the 6th paragraph it is stated that the purchaser was making efforts to carve out sites in 9 acres 12 guntas in the possession of the Petitioner). 8. It is further claimed that the 4th Respondent was not prepared to utter lies before the Land Tribunal, therefore he did not appear before the same. However, Lakshminarayana as a holder of Power of Attorney appeared and filed a statement before the Land Tribunal mentioning "that Rangadhamulu Naidu and Raghavendra being afraid of the Petitioner who is a politician signed the affidavit without understanding anything. Therefore, refusing the statement made by the Power of Attorney holder the Petitioner filed reply and additional reply. 9. In the written statement it was mentioned that plot Nos. 1 and 2 measuring 8 acres 1 gunta was purchased by Rangadhamulu Naidu on 5.7.1962 and the balance land namely plots 3, 4 and 5 of 9 acres 12 guntas was purchased on 1.10.1965. It was further stated that prior to sale Rangadhamulu Naidu first entered into an agreement of sale with the original owner Archbishop of Bangalore with whose permission he applied for grant in Plots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 into non-agricultural industrial purpose with the Deputy Commissioner for the entire 17 acre 20 guntas. The Deputy Commissioner sent reference to City Improvement Trust Board, and the Trust Board gave no objection for the entire land. Rangadhamulu Naidu and the Trust Board entered into a registered agreement on 3.7.1961 for forming a private layout. The said 9 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 was sold by Rangadhamulu Naidu to A.M. Ramamurthy by a registered sale deed in 1969 and the said Ramamurthy sold the same to Raghavendra Naidu in 1971. Rangadhamulu Naidu and the Trust Board entered into a registered agreement on 3.7.1961 for forming a private layout. The said 9 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 was sold by Rangadhamulu Naidu to A.M. Ramamurthy by a registered sale deed in 1969 and the said Ramamurthy sold the same to Raghavendra Naidu in 1971. In all these documents the land referred to is plot Nos. 3, 4 and 5. It was further mentioned that the land is described as "Mane banjar" and the relevant RTC from 1973-80 showed that for Sy. No. 4/1 kathedars are Rangadhamulu Naidu, Ramamurthy and Raghavendra and there is no tenancy. 10. In the reply statement filed by the Petitioner before the Tribunal (which is referred to in the writ petition), reference was again made that the 4th Respondent was a non-agriculturist and he has not brought the lands under cultivation within 5 years as per law. But his intention was to make building sites as stated in the statement. There was also a compromise to give that portion of the land to the Petitioner which is claimed to have been cultivated but instead of giving the Petitioner the extent cultivated by him he volunteered to give 6 revenue sites alleged to have been formed in the said land. It is further submitted that Power of Attorney Laxminarayana has no locus standi. It is also mentioned that 9 acres 12 guntas was sold to the Respondent-Ramamurthy in 1969 and in turn Ramamurthy sold to Raghavendra in 1971. Such transactions are not valid in the eye of law. The Respondents voluntarily made declaration of, sale of six revenue sites in the year 1978 is enough to nullify the sale as he is not authorized to deal with the tenanted agricultural land. Finally the claim of tenancy on 9 acres 12 guntas was reiterated. 11. In the additional statement filed by the Petitioner Krishnamurthy it is contended that Rangadhamulu Naidu never executed any Power of Attorney and as such any statement made by Laxminarayana has to be rejected. A copy of the statement made by Krishnamurthy before the Tribunal was filed as Annexure-G. Surprisingly, he has admitted non-cultivation, though he said he has applied for registration of 9.12 acres of land, he deposed.- I came to possession about 16 years back for about 3 to 4 years raised Ragi and dry crops. A copy of the statement made by Krishnamurthy before the Tribunal was filed as Annexure-G. Surprisingly, he has admitted non-cultivation, though he said he has applied for registration of 9.12 acres of land, he deposed.- I came to possession about 16 years back for about 3 to 4 years raised Ragi and dry crops. Thereafter there is no cultivation of the land and canal are being done to thrashing. There are huts in the land as on 1.3.1974 it was not under cultivation and just prior thereto. In the cross-examination it is mentioned regarding the sanctioned layout plan: The panchayat has approved the plan. As a Chairman, I might have signed. I did not question it since majority opinion prevail. Since the land was left fallow there is no point in getting my name in the pahani. 12. When the Power of Attorney was examined he deposed in the Chief Examination itself that When the Bishop sold it to the Respondent he never told the Respondent that the applicant (Krishnamurthy) is cultivating it as a tenant of the suit land. After the Respondent purchased it, the applicant never cultivated the suit land at any time and the applicant never paid any wara to the Respondent. 13. These depositions is not challenged in the cross examination and not even a suggestion was made contra to what was spoken to in the Chief Examination by the said Power of Attorney. 14. The order of the Tribunal filed as Annexure-K contain the following finding: The applicant himself states that the suit land is not under his cultivation either on 1.3.1974 or just prior to. This fact also been corroborated by his own witness and the witnesses of the Respondent. Perusal of the entries in the cultivators column of the RTC are in the name of Rangadhamulu Naidu from 1972-75 and it is noted as "BANJARU" right from 1970-71 onwards. There is no dispute as to the fallowness of the land since a long time. In the instant case the applicant claims tenancy on the plea that he was cultivating 16 years ago. He himself admits before the Tribunal that he has not been cultivating it since 10-12 years. He cannot deemed to be a tenant since he has not proved his cultivation with any documentary proof. The Tribunal cannot rely on his oral statement. In the instant case the applicant claims tenancy on the plea that he was cultivating 16 years ago. He himself admits before the Tribunal that he has not been cultivating it since 10-12 years. He cannot deemed to be a tenant since he has not proved his cultivation with any documentary proof. The Tribunal cannot rely on his oral statement. He himself admits before the Tribunal that he has been cultivating in since 10-12 years. 15. When this order was challenged in the above writ petition, which was directed to convert into LRA 192 of 1986 and now transferred to this Court and numbered as Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991, a statement of objection was filed by the 4th Respondent-Rangadhamulu Naidu on 16.3.1982, when he was alive. 16. In the aforesaid statement the following contentions were raised by the deceased Rangadhamulu Naidu: He purchased the Western portion namely 8 acres 1 gunta from the then Arch Bishop of Bangalore Most Reverend Potthacamury on 5.7.1962 consisting of plot 1 and 2 as per the plan attached to the sale deed. The Eastern portion measuring 9 acres 12 guntas was purchased from the then Archbishop Most Reverend Lourdhuswamy on 1.10.1965 consisting of plot Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and as per the plan attached thereto. Earlier he entered into two agreement of sale on 25.5.1961 and 28.6.1961 for the entire land of 17 acres 11 guntas after having paid heavy advances. Due to the pendency of Writ Petition No. 145 of 1962, regarding the Eastern portion, the Archbishop could not register the second sale in 1962 itself and the second transaction was completed when the Writ Petition was dismissed on 23.11.1964. In these sale deeds or in the transaction there is no reference nor even any recital about the alleged tenancy of either the Petitioner-Krishnamurthy or that of his father Muniswamappa or anybody. The sale deeds are not violative of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, since the Petitioner was never a tenant and was an utter stranger and the Act does not apply to non-tenanted lands. It was further mentioned that the declaration cum affidavit was brought about and was master minded by the Petitioner and the Respondent mechanically signed without understanding the contents as he did not know English. It was further mentioned that the declaration cum affidavit was brought about and was master minded by the Petitioner and the Respondent mechanically signed without understanding the contents as he did not know English. The Petitioner's witness Sanjeevappa himself had stated in his examination-in-chief before the Land Tribunal that the land was not under cultivation for the previous 10 to 15 years i.e. (prior to the date of deposition) and that the Petitioner also did not cultivate the same. Further the land is 'Banjaru' and some sheds are put up there. In his cross examination the said witness even conceded that there are roads inside the land. The two witnesses for the Respondent namely Nallappa and Hemanna have stated that the Petitioner never cultivated the same and he was never a tenant. The 9 acres 12 guntas of land is only house sites and also some built-in sheds and huts. The Respondents 4 and 5 applied to the Byappanahalli Panchayat for approval of the house sites in the said land with roads. The Petitioner himself who was then the Chairman of the said Panchayat approved the lay out for house sites under his own signature and photostat copies of the layout plan dated 13.4.1975 was filed as Annexure-R.3. As a matter of fact the Byappanahalli Panchayat approved the house sites of the land by its resolution in 1968 as could be seen from the photostat copies filed as Annexure-R-4 and consequently the land cannot be claimed to be an agricultural land. The land is not merely fallow but lost all its characteristic of an agricultural land even before 1961. A copy of the memo bearing No. A7/CON.164 of 1961-62 dated 6.7.1961 from the Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board to this Respondent was filed as Annexure-R-5. The true copy of the affidavit filed by the then Archbishop of Bangalore Most Reverend Thomas Pothacamury in Writ Petition No. 145 of 1962 was also filed in which the father has shown in paras 7 and 12 that the land is non-agricultural in nature. The copies of pahanies filed as Annexures R-7 and R-8 do not also contain the name of the Petitioner or his father either as a tenant or as cultivator. 17. The copies of pahanies filed as Annexures R-7 and R-8 do not also contain the name of the Petitioner or his father either as a tenant or as cultivator. 17. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was not in possession at any point of time and the Respondent was put in possession in pursuance of the agreement of sale and part performance thereon under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This Respondent applied for conversion and no objection was granted as early as on 6.7.1961, under Annexure-R.5 referred to supra. There was also a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate concerning disturbance in this land. In this proceeding the Petitioner was in no way concerned. That shows he was never in possession. 18. A fine water makedam pakka, 35' wide road with stone slabs drain, concrete benches-from old Madras road to the Eastern entry of the land was put up about 7 years back (earlier to 16.3.1982) by the Byappanahalli Panchayat which also shows the non-agricultural character of the land. 19. It is significant to note that the above contention was raised by Rangadhamulu Naidu when he was alive. 20. A reply to the statement of objections filed by the 4th Respondent, was made by the Petitioner and the following contentions were raised. 21. The various transactions like agreement, sale deed etc., are not valid and not binding on the Petitioner. The alleged transactions are immaterial and the Petitioner's right is not affected. The documents now filed along with the objection statement were not produced before the Tribunal. The resolution dated 3.4.1968 appears to have been passed at a meeting alleged to have been presided over by B.M. Ramaswamy as Chairman. But on that day, the said Ramaswamy was not the Chairman. On an application to the Panchayat a reply is received that no resolution like Annexure R-4 is available on record. The plan produced under Annexure R-3 refer only to 8.01 acres of Western Portion not at all refer to 9 acres 12 guntas with which alone the Petitioner was concerned. The sanction said to have been given by the Authority has since been withdrawn. 22. The plan produced under Annexure R-3 refer only to 8.01 acres of Western Portion not at all refer to 9 acres 12 guntas with which alone the Petitioner was concerned. The sanction said to have been given by the Authority has since been withdrawn. 22. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 4th Respondent-Rangadhamulu Naidu appears to have died and his L Rs Respondents 7 to 11 i.e., two of his other sons and widow and children of the deceased 1st son were brought on record by order dated 28.8.1996 one of the sons Raghavendra being already a party to the petition being Respondent-5. 23. On behalf of Respondent-6 to Respondent-9 a statement was filed on 23.11.2000. It was contended therein that as per the Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in Nagappa Devanna Naik Vs. Venkatramana Thimmanna Naik and Another, AIR 1978 Kant 56 the Tribunal must decide whether the applicant was cultivating the land as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior to it. Reference also was made to the dictum of Vilas alias Gundu Ananthacharya Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR (1987) KAR 1427 to the effect that the tenant must show that he has been and he is in cultivation of the land even on the material date. The application of Krishnamurthy was rejected on the ground that he was not cultivating the land. It is submitted that there was no agricultural operation. It is beyond one's comprehension as to why anyone requires 9 acres for a thatched shed or thrashing floor, particularly in view of his admission that he had not cultivated the land for 12 years. 24. The above in detail is the contentions of the parties in Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991. (B) Writ Petition No. 17833 of 1993 25. This writ is filed by Sriman Narayana, one of the sons of Rangadhamulu Naidu challenging the order granting occupancy right to Doddaiah by order dated 12.11.1986 made in LRF No. 3627 of 1976-77. The said order was filed as Annexure-C. As Doddaiah was dead by then, his daughter and sons were made parties as 5th Respondent and Respondents 3 and 4 respectively. 26. It was claimed by the Petitioner that 9 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 belong to the family of Rangadhamulu Naidu. The said order was filed as Annexure-C. As Doddaiah was dead by then, his daughter and sons were made parties as 5th Respondent and Respondents 3 and 4 respectively. 26. It was claimed by the Petitioner that 9 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 belong to the family of Rangadhamulu Naidu. The land was initially sold to one Ramamurthy and was purchased back for the benefit of the family in the name of one of the sons. A layout was made in 1961 and in the layout certain sites were sold by the other brother Raghavendra, in Byappanahalli Gramadhana Extension, which was different from Binnamangala Manavarthakaval lands. A suit for partition filed by the sons of Rangadhamulu Naidu in O.S. No. 156 of 1987 ended in a compromise decree each sons getting 2 acres 13 guntas out of the entire land. Such a compromise decree was confirmed by the Supreme Court. On the basis of the decree, entries were made on Revenue Records by the Tahsildar and in the record of rights. When such entries were questioned by some purchasers, the Assistant Commissioner set aside the entries; however directed the Tahsildar to effect change in accordance with the decree. Such an order was challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 7740-7742 of 1990. The Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the matter observed that the entries were to be made in accordance with the partition decree and both the Petitioner and the Respondent cannot have any grievance. The Bench further directed that the purchasers of various sites from Raghavendra Naidu, on their success in their respective suits already filed, can seek for change of entries in their names. 27. It was further alleged by the Petitioner that the Petitioners and his brothers were kept in dark about certain proceeding initiated by the said Doddaiah who died on 22.12.1990 in which the Tribunal has granted occupancy right under the impugned order. One Sridhar (the husband of one Nalini, purchaser of two sites from D.R. Raghavendra), claimed to be the Power of Attorney Holder said to have appeared before the Tribunal in Doddaiah's case. The Petitioner came to know about the order only when entries were sought to be made in the record of rights. Later it was also brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner that earlier one B.M. Krishnamurthy filed an application for occupancy right in LRF. The Petitioner came to know about the order only when entries were sought to be made in the record of rights. Later it was also brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner that earlier one B.M. Krishnamurthy filed an application for occupancy right in LRF. 1681 of 1974-75 which was rejected by the Tribunal holding that the land in question was not tenanted at all. On the above allegations, the order was questioned. 28. In the objection statement filed by Respondents 3 and 4, the verification of the affidavit of the objection statement of Respondent-1 and Respondent-6 one Diwakar was commented upon. It is specifically mentioned that the said Diwakar is guilty of concocting documents and that there are proceedings pending before the Karnataka Lokayuktha against him in respect of certain charges levelled against him pertaining to Land Tribunal cases. In 1992 the very same Tahsildar has also issued a "no tenancy" certificate in respect of the petition land to the effect that there are no cases pending before the Land Tribunal excepting a reference made to the claim of tenancy of Krishnamurthy. Though there was a denial of filing of Form No. 7 by Doddaiah, it is seen from the certified copy issued on 22.11.1986, such a Form No. 7 was in fact filed on 5.3.1976. A copy of the same is produced as Annexure R-5. It was further submitted that in 1976-77 many cases have been registered in duplicate and one such instance is the present one wherein in respect of the land Doddaiah had made application. Another person by name Lingamma also appears to have made an application in Form No. 7 in LRF No. 3627 of 1977 of Kurusonnahalli, Seegehalli, One Diwakar as Special Tahsildar had registered two cases and given the same case number namely LRF 3972 of 1976-77 in respect of two different applicants. In fact, an application was filed by one Chandrashekaraiah praying to enquire into the giving of same number to two different applicants namely Pillareddy and Chandrappa. It is finally contended that the documents pertaining to Doddaiah are not fabricated documents. The proceedings in Case No. 1681 of 1974-75 relate to only one tenant namely B.M. Krishnamurthy (It is significant to note that no other averment made in the petition was denied in the reply statement). 29. The Government also filed objection statement mentioning that as per the revenue records Sy. The proceedings in Case No. 1681 of 1974-75 relate to only one tenant namely B.M. Krishnamurthy (It is significant to note that no other averment made in the petition was denied in the reply statement). 29. The Government also filed objection statement mentioning that as per the revenue records Sy. No. 4/1 belong to Rangadhamulu Naidu and other members of his family. In pursuance of the decree passed in O.S. No. 156 of 1987 the entries have been so made in the Mutation Register. It was specifically mentioned in para-4 of the objection statement by the Government that "Doddaiah has not applied or submitted any application before the land Tribunal for the confirmation of occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 4/1 of Binnamangala Manavarthekaval. But the case No. LRF 3627 of 1976-77 has been registered to Smt. Lingamma Kuru Sonnehalli, Seegehalli, Krishnarajapuram Hobli. The order passed in respect of case No. 3627 of 1976-77 was one of dismissal on 24.12.1981. Therefore, no order has been passed on 12.11.1986 by the Tribunal. The averment made out in paragraph-5 was admitted as true and Doddaiah's legal representatives had approached the Tahsildar for change of khatha in respect of land in Sy. No. 4/1 of Binnamangala, Manavarthakaval, but on verification of the document it is learnt that the documents pertaining to Doddaiah is fabricated document. This objection statement was filed on 18.1.1994. 30. The above is the pleading in Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991. (C) Writ Petition No. 20220 of 1993 31. This Writ Petition is filed by Jayaprakash, another son of Rangadhamulu Naidu. Apart from repeating the same facts narrated by his brother Sriman Narayana, the Petitioner Jayaprakash stated that sometimes in 1970 his father was in urgent need of money and borrowed the same from his friend Ramamurthy. As security for due repayment of the loan a portion of Sy. No. 4/1 was given by way of sale, to reconvey the same after the money was repaid. Accordingly the property was reconveyed. It is evident from the fact that the sale consideration was nominally mentioned as Rs. 10,000/- only. The reconveyance was however made in the name of one of the sons for the purpose of convenience and thus the property reverted back to the joint family. Accordingly the property was reconveyed. It is evident from the fact that the sale consideration was nominally mentioned as Rs. 10,000/- only. The reconveyance was however made in the name of one of the sons for the purpose of convenience and thus the property reverted back to the joint family. In respect of the remaining portion not conveyed to Ramamurthy 8 acres 01 gunta, the father Rangadhamulu Naidu obtained conversion from the authorities, formed layout and sold the sites. 32. During 1975, difference arose between the sons and consequently, an amicable partition was effected in respect of the remaining 9 acres 12 guntas by way of oral partition evidenced by a memorandum of partition made on 10.6.1975 and a sketch was prepared and attached with such memorandum. Such a sketch was filed along with the writ petition as Annexure-C1. When an attempt was made by Raghavendra to lay a claim on other sharers O.S. 156 of 1987 came to be filed for injunction, which however ended in a compromise decree recording the earlier partition. On that basis entries were changed as was referred to in the earlier writ petition. 33. In the writ petition, it is also pointed that RT Cs show Index-1 in Column 12(3). It was also mentioned that the plaint filed as early as in 1987 by third parties, reiterated and confirmed the facts stated by the Petitioner in the writ petition. Other suits were also filed in O.S. 5271 of 1988, 5458 of 1988, 5912 of 1988 by the Petitioners and others for injunction against various persons. Some other suits in O.S. Nos. 4774 of 1987, 4878 of 1987, 4880 of 1987, 4970 of 1987, 5659 of 1987, 5660 of 1987 and 85 of 1991 were also filed by various persons who have purchased sites from Raghavendra and Sridhar. But it was submitted that these sites are situated in Byappanahalli, and not in Binnamangala Manavarthekaval. 34. It was also alleged that the order sheet filed as Annexures-N, N1 and N2 indicated that one Sridhar was participating in the proceedings without referring to the khatha entries and it is significant to note that it was this Sridhar who had purported to convey a portion of the land in Sy. No. 4/1 in 1987. 34. It was also alleged that the order sheet filed as Annexures-N, N1 and N2 indicated that one Sridhar was participating in the proceedings without referring to the khatha entries and it is significant to note that it was this Sridhar who had purported to convey a portion of the land in Sy. No. 4/1 in 1987. Reference was also made to Annexure-Q wherein it was shown that on 19.10.1992, sanction was accorded for alienation of 2 acres 13 guntas of the Petitioner's land to be used for non-agricultural purposes. 35. Annexure-S was filed which was Form No. 7, by Krishnamurthy showing the owner as Archbishop and Rangadhamulu Naidu. Annexure-S1 was the statement of objections filed by the Archbishop of Bangalore before the land Reforms Appellate Authority in LRA 192 of 1986 wherein the said Archbishop specifically mentioned that the sale deeds were executed prior to the enactment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 which came into force from 2.10.1965. It was also submitted by him that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Archbishop and the said Krishnamurthy. Annexure-S2 is the copy application made by Sridhar for grant of copy of the written statement and Annexure-S3 is the order passed against Krishnamurthy. 36. In the grounds of writ petition it was mentioned that the order granting the occupancy right to Doddaiah 12.11.1986 when his application was said to have been filed on 5.3.1976. He has claimed that he has been cultivating for more than 10-15 years (from 1966). At that time, Rangadhamulu Naidu was the owner of the property. No notice was issued to Rangadhamulu Naidu. 37. It is further alleged that there is no public notice as is mandatorily enjoined under the Land Reforms Act. But Sri Sridhar who claims to be a power of attorney holder for Sri Raghavendra claims to have entered appearance on 25.7.1986. On that, the statements of Sri Doddaiah and Sridhar are claimed to have been made and the case adjourned to 27.9.1986. Sridhar allegedly produced some more documents and some written statements are stated to have been taken. The case was adjourned to 8.10.1986 and on that day a direction was issued to Sridhar to produce Sri Raghavendra, and on 29.10.1986 Sridhar represented, expressed his inability to produce Sri Raghavendra before the Court. Sridhar allegedly produced some more documents and some written statements are stated to have been taken. The case was adjourned to 8.10.1986 and on that day a direction was issued to Sridhar to produce Sri Raghavendra, and on 29.10.1986 Sridhar represented, expressed his inability to produce Sri Raghavendra before the Court. According to the order sheet (Annexure-N) Sri Raghavendra strangely is said to have refused to receive the notice and stated that it may be served upon Sridhar. The order sheet Annexure-N clearly reflects the statements made herein. On 8.10.1986, two statements of Sri Raghavendra are said to have been recorded vide Annexures N and N-1. In his statement Doddaiah claims to have been a tenant under Sri Raghavendra who had succeeded to the estate of D. Rangadhamulu Naidu. The statement was recorded on 25.7.1986. On 8.10.1986, two witnesses Sri Munivenkatappa and Sri Munikrishnappa stated in their deposition that Sri D. Rangadhamulu Naidu was dead on that day. All these statements are a tissue of lies, and made in reckless disregard of truth. Sri D. Randadhamulu died on 8.7.1992. Therefore, the deposition of Doddaiah, Sri Munivenkatappa and Sri Munikrishnappa are patently false. 38. It is also alleged that the witness examined on behalf of Doddaiah have stated that the lands were inherited by Raghavendra. Therefore, the Petitioner and his brothers were necessary parties. Doddaiah stated in his deposition that he took the lease on wara basis from Rangadhamulu Naidu. If that be so, Rangadhamulu Naidu should have been cited as Respondent. Neither Rangadhamulu Naidu nor Raghavendra was served with any notice. The conduct of Sridhar was also questioned. Having held earlier that the land was not tenanted a contrary order cannot be passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the order was assailed. 39. Respondents 6 and 7 in this petition are the sons and Respondent 8 is the daughter of Doddaiah. Respondent-4 is Sridhar and Respondent 5 is the other brother Raghavendra. 40. In the statement of objection filed by Respondents 6 and 7 it is contended as follows: The writ petition filed after 7 years of the order is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The explanation given that only in May 1993, the Petitioner came to know about the order, is not true. 40. In the statement of objection filed by Respondents 6 and 7 it is contended as follows: The writ petition filed after 7 years of the order is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The explanation given that only in May 1993, the Petitioner came to know about the order, is not true. The suit in O.S. No. 156 of 1987 was filed on 6.1.1987 and hardly within a month thereafter a compromise decree was passed on 2.2.1987. It is thus a make belief affair. It is further submitted that the late Doddaiah was in actual cultivation and possession of 9 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 in Binnamangala as a tenant from 1965 under the then owner Rangadhamulu Naidu, the father of the Petitioner. The sale inter se Ramamurthy and then to Raghavendra did not affect the payment of rentals by deceased Doddaiah, to the said Rangadhamulu Naidu and subsequently to Raghavendra and then to his Power of Attorney Holder Sridhar. In the proceedings before the Tribunal for grant of occupancy right, after due notice to all interested persons, (as Raghavendra refused to receive the notice) final order was passed on 12.11.1986. These Respondents are not aware of the claim made by Krishnamurthy. The conversion claimed in respect of the land was denied. The order was not a valid order. So also the proceedings under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. All these took place behind the back of Doddaiah and without notice to him. The statement of witnesses filed as Annexures-N, N1 and N2 does not reflect the true state of affairs. It might have been quite possible that the said Rangadhamulu Naidu might have died. No emphatic statement about the death was made before the Tribunal. The endorsement produced as Annexure-P dated 6.6.1992 refer to Sy. No. 4/1c and it is a different land. The Petitioner and his brothers have no right in the property in question and they could not have made sites thereon and alleged to have sold the same to the third parties, when there has been conferment of occupancy right in respect of the same in favour of Doddaiah. 41. The nature of the property and the ownership was claimed by Raghavendra in the declaration filed under Section 6 Sub-clauses (1) of 1976 Act. He claimed that he is the absolute owner. 41. The nature of the property and the ownership was claimed by Raghavendra in the declaration filed under Section 6 Sub-clauses (1) of 1976 Act. He claimed that he is the absolute owner. Thus, prayer to rejection of the petition was made. 42. The 4th Respondent-Sridhar also made his objection statement to this writ petition enclosing a number of documents. It is his contention that he had received no notice before the Land Tribunal and he was not informed by the 5th Respondent-Raghavendra to appear before the Tribunal at any time. Someone else should have impersonated him before the Tribunal. The sale deed by Rev. Fr. D.S. Lourdhuswamy to Rangadhamulu Naidu in respect of the aforesaid 9 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 go to show that the land was non-agricultural in nature and the purpose of selling itself was to form the layout of residential sites. In fact the City Improvement Trust Board has approved the layout plan by resolution dated 23.4.1969 as could be seen from Annexures R.1. The ODP and CDP i.e. Outline Development Plan and City Development Plan approved by Government on 22.5.1972 is filed as Annexure R.2. The Tribunal had not applied its mind to the nature of the land as to the evidence placed before it to come to the conclusion as to whether this land is agricultural or non-agricultural. In fact, there is no definite finding on this aspect in the order at all. This is a jurisdictionary fact and the Tribunal has failed to advert to the evidence on record which has resulted in a wrong order. Even on the question of personal cultivation the Tribunal has held contrary to the entries in the RT Cs in respect of this land. Therefore reliance placed upon the statement of the alleged tenant cannot be accepted. 43. It is further pointed out in the objection statement one Krishnamurthy filed Form No. 7 before the same Tribunal which dismissed such a claim and the same came to be the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 1782 of 1982; later transferred to the Appellate Tribunal; again transferred back to the High Court. Had the claim of Doddaiah been real the Tribunal ought to have clubbed both the applications to decide the questions as to who was occupant and what was the nature of the land. Had the claim of Doddaiah been real the Tribunal ought to have clubbed both the applications to decide the questions as to who was occupant and what was the nature of the land. It was further contended that the Petitioner along with his brothers had committed acts of fraud and collusion and abused the process of Court to make illegal and wrongful gain out of the property, already sold to various persons. In fact, the Petitioner and his brothers financed by 3rd parties had become new type of land grabbers by creating and fabricating documents/deeds and records in order to cheat innocent persons numbering about hundred and odd. Vehemently contending that this Respondent was unaware of the proceeding pertaining to Doddaiah, it was reiterated that he had not seen Doddaiah in his life time nor did he participate in any proceedings. In fact, the 7th Respondent-Srinivasa, the son of Doddaiah was one of the witnesses to the Mahazar drawn subsequent to the order, by Taluk surveyor on 1.4.1989 with reference to the same Sy. No. 4/1. The mahazar was drawn to identify site Nos. 18 and 35 sold by D. Raghavendra in the same Sy. No. 4/1. This Respondent is surprised to see the order sheet in LRF No. 3627 of 1976-77 "as if this Respondent appeared before the Land Tribunal and made his signatures". The signatures of the Respondent on the order sheet and other papers, if any, are forged. They are not the signatures of this Respondent. This Respondent is not known to any members of the Land Tribunal nor was he present in the Tribunal at any time. Somebody enmical to this Respondent further to cheat the purchasers have masterminded this game. Throughout, this Respondent has been supporting cases for the purchases of site from Raghavendra and as an agreement holder and G.P.A. Holder for this purpose. He never acted against the power executed by 5th Respondent (Raghavendra). 44. Continuing the contentions in the objection statement the 4th Respondent narrated the entire sequence of events, which we shall deal with later. 45. Throughout, this Respondent has been supporting cases for the purchases of site from Raghavendra and as an agreement holder and G.P.A. Holder for this purpose. He never acted against the power executed by 5th Respondent (Raghavendra). 44. Continuing the contentions in the objection statement the 4th Respondent narrated the entire sequence of events, which we shall deal with later. 45. It was further submitted that at the time of sale, the purchasers had to issue notice to the appropriate authorities under Sections 26 and 27 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and before registration, no objection was raised by the ULC, in view of the exemption granted by the Government of Karnataka which enured to the benefit of the purchasers. Thus, it is seen that his attack was both on the Petitioners as well as on Doddaiah and it was however on behalf of the purchasers on various plots. 46. An additional objection was filed by the said 4th Respondent on 9.11.2000 wherein it was reiterated that the entire extent of 17 acres 20 guntas was originally owned by Arch Bishop of Bangalore. It was subdivided as plot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. After purchase, the intention of D. Rangadhamulu Naidu was to make layout in the said Sy. No. 4/1 Binnamangala Manavarthe Kaval. With the consent of Arch Bishop the aforesaid Naidu got the land converted for residential building. As already submitted the delay in execution of the sale deed was due to the objection made by the displaced residents of K.G. Srinivasapura who had filed Writ petition No. 145 of 1962 for a writ of Mandamus to direct Government to acquire the extent of 9 acres 12 guntas and grant the sites to the displaced persons. 47. It was further submitted that late Doddaiah and his wife Akkaiamma were originally residents of the said K.G. Srinivasapura. This village K.G. Srinivasapura was acquired by the Government for formation of Aero Engine Factory. The villagers including the Doddaiah and his wife petitioned to the Government on 22.10.1960 to acquire and grant sites to the displaced villagers, the 9 acres 12 guntas portion of Sy. No. 4/1, Binnamangala, Manavarthakaval, Bangalore South Taluk. Doddaiah signed as 20th person and Akkaiamma signed as 42nd person in the memorandum/representation given to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and the Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board. No. 4/1, Binnamangala, Manavarthakaval, Bangalore South Taluk. Doddaiah signed as 20th person and Akkaiamma signed as 42nd person in the memorandum/representation given to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and the Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board. The acknowledgement made by Special LAO's office and the receipt of such petition is available on Annexure-R.32. The Government after inspection prepared a layout plan under Annexure R-33. Thus, even as early as in 1960-61, the land was not fit for agricultural purpose. An agreement was entered into by the deceased Rangadhamulu Naidu in favour of City Improvement Trust Board on 3.7.1961 for sanction of conversion to the entire extent of 17 acres 20 guntas of land into the non-agricultural holding. That agreement is filed as Annexure-R.34. After the disposal of Writ petition No. 145 of 1962 Arch Bishop executed the sale deed. Even the RTC show that the land was "Mane Banjaru" and unfit for agricultural activity. The outline development plan of 1972 also show the land as residential in nature. Thus, even before the advent of Land Reforms Act, the land had lost its agricultural characteristics. As per the agreement and as per the sale deeds Rangadhamulu Naidu formed layout in the entire extent and later sold house sites in plots 1 and 2 (8 acres, 8 guntas) and retained sites in plots 3, 4 and 5 measuring 9 acres 12 guntas, that is the land in dispute. 48. It is further submitted that the entire extent of land measuring 17 acres 20 guntas was proposed to be acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board. Since the layout had been already formed, and sites purchased by the Respondent and similar persons, a representation was made by the Association of site holders and acting upon such a representation, the BDA by Resolution No. 499 dated 28.9.1984 resolved to denotify the land on behalf of the site holders as could be seen by Annexure-R.35. 49. On the question of the claim of Doddaiah attributing knowledge of the nature of the land to Doddaiah himself which is submitted as follows in para-10 of the objections statement. The 4th Respondent submits that Doddaiah was not and could not have been a tenant of the land measuring 9 acres 12 guntas of land at any point of time. The land was unfit for agricultural activity. The 4th Respondent submits that Doddaiah was not and could not have been a tenant of the land measuring 9 acres 12 guntas of land at any point of time. The land was unfit for agricultural activity. Even according to the statement of objection filed by State of Karnataka, the records pertaining to Doddaiah are concocted, fabricated and bogus; and that the Case No. 3627 pertains to the Form No. 7 of Smt. Lingamma of Seegehalli village. Further from the copy of the alleged Form-7 of Doddaiah, which is alleged to be filed on 5.3.1976, the case number in 3627 of 1976-77. This cannot be true as the years of filing commences from 1st April and closes on 31st March of the succeeding year. When this is so, the year of Doddaiah" case must have been 75-76 and not 76-77. Further the alleged Form-7 of Doddaiah is interpolated in Kengeri Hobli register and not entered in Krishnarajapura Hobli register which is the jurisdictional Hobli. Further, Doddaiah is estopped from claiming the land as agricultural as he himself had sought for grant of site in the land in question as early as in 1960-61, so he himself knew the non-agricultural character of the land. 50. Finally it is submitted that the 4th Respondent could not have acted against his own interest by making any statement in favour of Doddaiah as the 4th Respondent himself was one of the agreement holders for purchase of site for himself or his nominees. His wife has also purchased sites. No prudent persons would give statement against his own interest. Further most of the sale deeds are of the year 1981-82 and the alleged statement before the Land Tribunal is in 1986. Reference has also been made to the affidavits filed by the then Land Tribunal members who have stated that their signatures the records are concocted or forged. Even Form No. 10 said to have contained the signature of one Tahsildar Shivalingaiah has been denied by him and the affidavit of Shivalingaiah is filed as Annexure-R.36. It was further submitted that the records seem to have been built up in the name of dead person so that even if it is detected nobody can be prosecuted as no action can be taken against the dead person. Thus, the writ petition was resisted. 51. This is the sum and substance of the above writ petition. It was further submitted that the records seem to have been built up in the name of dead person so that even if it is detected nobody can be prosecuted as no action can be taken against the dead person. Thus, the writ petition was resisted. 51. This is the sum and substance of the above writ petition. (D) Writ Petition No. 23087 of 1993 52. This writ petition is filed by the widow and sons of Panduranga Naidu who in turn is one of the sons of Rangadhamulu Naidu and the Petitioners claimed the same relief in respect of the same order dated 12.11.1986. The same contentions were raised by the Petitioners. In the statement of objections filed by the Respondents 3 and 4, the sons of Doddaiah, the same objections made by them to Writ Petition No. 20220 of 1993 was reiterated. Apart from the same allegations against the Tahsildar, it was further claimed that the said Tahsildar was facing proceedings before the Karnataka Lokayuktha. 53. It was further claimed in the additional objection statement of the Respondents 3 and 4 that the alleged memorandum of partition between the brothers cannot be taken as true. The memorandum of partition was signed by one Krishnappa, Srimannarayana and Hazira Begaum. They had been allotted vacant site by BDA on 5.10.1978 on the said site she had constructed residential house and subsequently leased it to the said Sriman Narayana. Therefore the memorandum of partition dated 10.7.1975 cannot be believed. It was also submitted that the contention of the Petitioner and three other brothers, that Rangadhamulu Naidu on 28.6.1969 executed a sale deed with right of reconveyance on 1.5.1971, is incorrect. In O.S. No. 119 of 1980 a suit filed by Deena Dayala Naidu on the file of the Court of the II Munsiff, Bangalore, the said Rangadhamulu Naidu had contended that on 28.6.1969 he has sold the portion to A.M. Ramamurthy who has sold in turn the petition land to the Petitioner on 1.5.1971. If really it was the intention of the parties that the sale deed dated 1.5.1971 is intended to be a reconveyance nothing prevented the said Rangadhamulu Naidu to put forward the said contention at the earlier stage as on 14.1.1980 when Annexure-R.9 was filed. If really it was the intention of the parties that the sale deed dated 1.5.1971 is intended to be a reconveyance nothing prevented the said Rangadhamulu Naidu to put forward the said contention at the earlier stage as on 14.1.1980 when Annexure-R.9 was filed. Thus, the Petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has come forward with unclean hands and on this ground, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The above in nut shell is the case in Writ Petition No. 23087 of 1993. (E) Writ Petition No. 26043 of 1993 54. This writ petition is filed by Raghavendra, one of the brothers and said to be the main person against whom Doddaiah appears to have applied for grant of occupancy right over the petition land. More or less the same contentions are raised in this writ petition. 56. In the statement of objections filed by the sons of Doddaiah Respondents 3 and 4 similar contentions were raised. The counter refers to the sale deed of Ramamurthy to Raghavendra-Petitioner, in Annexure-R.1. A reference was made to P. Misc. Case No. 1042 of 1980 and it is contended that Raghavendra Naidu was by an order of injunction operating from 1980 to 1990 was injuncted from alienating any one of the properties including the petition land. In spite of that, it is seen that the Petitioner has sold portions of the land to about 20 persons. A true copy of the relevant portion of one of the sale deeds dated 7.9.1981 in favour of one K.S. Srinivasa Murthy is produced as Annexure-R3. Further it is contended that the Petitioner has no respect for the Court orders and also for truth. It also referred to the execution of sale deed in Madras in respect of the portions of the land in order to circumvent the non-judicial stamp duty. The true copy of one such sale deed in favour of one Maghdolina is filed as Annexure-R.4. It is further submitted that the deceased Doddaiah was a lessee under Rangadhamulu Naidu and subsequent to the alienation of the same in favour of the said Ramamurthy under him and thereafter under the Petitioner. The said Doddaiah used to pay the rentals to the owners for which no receipts were used to be given. It is further submitted that the orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. The said Doddaiah used to pay the rentals to the owners for which no receipts were used to be given. It is further submitted that the orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1740-42 of 1990 and the mutation proceedings are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the present case for the simple reason that those proceedings have been initiated behind the back of the Petitioners. 56. The allegation against Doddaiah, after the order was passed was denied. It was submitted that the Doddaiah made application for change of khatha in his name, on 15.12.1986 and 8.9.1987 under Annexures-R.5 and R.6 as his wife Akkaiamma was suffering from cancer and she died on 11.7.1988. Thus, time passed by. In the circumstances prayed for dismissal was made. 57. This is the pleading in the above writ petition. 58. An application was filed by this Respondent for production of additional documents. It was mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application that Savithri wife of Raghavendra who was then residing at 315, Koramangala Layout, was allotted house No. 479, Koramangala Extension, as an economically weaker section and one Krishnappa son of Ramachandraiah who is described as a witness to the memorandum of partition dated 10.6.1975 was allotted Door No. 206, Blue house Koramangala layout on 8.7.1978. Likewise Sriman Narayana has given his address, at No. 414, 7th Main Road, 7th Block, Koramangala layout on 10.6.1975 in the memorandum of partition. But one Hazira Begaum has been allotted a vacant site by the BDA on 5.10.1978 and on the said site she had constructed residential house and subsequently leased out the said Sriman Narayana. All these factors go to show that the Petitioner and three other brothers have concocted the alleged memorandum of partition dated 10.6.1975. Reference was also made to O.S. No. 119 of 1980 which was referred to supra in the other writ petition by the same Respondents. Thus, the documents were sought to be introduced as additional evidence. 59. In this writ petition one Pattabi said to have been the purchaser of Site No. 137 measuring East to West and North to South 9.144 mts and 27.432 mts of the total area of 250 Sq. mts. has come forward with an application to implead him as a party. Claiming to be in possession of not only the above two plot Nos. mts. has come forward with an application to implead him as a party. Claiming to be in possession of not only the above two plot Nos. 137, 140, 138 and 139, 135 and 142 he has filed a petition to implead as a party filing Annexures-R.1 to R.7. 60. Heard the respective Counsel for the parties. 61. Heard the Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in four out of the five writ petitions, Mr. U.L. Bhat, Mr. Hegde and Mr. H. Narayanan, Senior Counsel for Respondents, Ms. Suguna Counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991. 62. The following points arise for consideration. i) Whether Krishnamurthy the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991 is entitled to claim occupancy right in respect of the suit land as a tenant? ii) Whether the grant made in favour of deceased Doddaiah holding him as a tenant in respect of the petition property is sustainable? iii) What is the nature of the land? Is it agricultural or non- agricultural? iv) Whether the writ petition filed by the sons of Rangahadamulu Naidu suffer on account of latches and delay? 63. Before dealing with the above facts let us look at the history of the case starting from 4 decades ago from today. The facts reveal that Rangadhamulu Naidu the original owner of the entire property had 4 sons i.e. Sriman Narayana, R. Jayaprakash, Panduranga Naidu and D.R. Raghavendra. Chronologically the following events happened. In 1960 - The property namely 17 acres 11 guntas belonged to Arch Bishop of Bangalore. 22.10.1960 - Memorandum submitted by 42 residents of Srinivasapura alias Suddaguntapalaya to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore stating that their holding and residences in their village were being acquired by the Government for the Aero Engine Factory; that the holding were their only means of livelihood; that the Government and LA Officer had earlier promised to acquire 10 acres in Sy. No. 4/1 of Binnamangala Manavarhakaval village to provide house sites for the memorialists but since then steps had been taken to acquire Sy. No. 4/1 for the double road (being road) and praying that Sy. No. 4/1 may be acquired for granting house sites to the memorialists. Doddaiah is signatory No. 20 and Akkaiamma is signatory No. 42 in the memorandum. 25.05.1961 - Agreement of sale by the Archbishop for 8 acres 01 gunta in favour of Rangadhamulu Naidu. No. 4/1 for the double road (being road) and praying that Sy. No. 4/1 may be acquired for granting house sites to the memorialists. Doddaiah is signatory No. 20 and Akkaiamma is signatory No. 42 in the memorandum. 25.05.1961 - Agreement of sale by the Archbishop for 8 acres 01 gunta in favour of Rangadhamulu Naidu. 28.06.1961 - Agreement for sale by the Archbishop for 9.12 acres in favour of Rangadhamulu Naidu. 1961 - Application by Naidu for conversion of 17.11 acres in Sy. No. 4/1. 03.07.1961 - Agreement entered between Rangathamulu Naidu and City Improvement Trust Board regarding 17 acres 11 guntas. 06.07.1961 - No objection certificate granted by City Improvement Trust Board by conversion for 8.01 acres. 05.07.1962 - Sale deed by Arch Bishop for plot Nos. 1 and 2 for Rs. 71,172.50. 01.10.1965 - Sale deed by Archbishop to the father D.R. Naidu in respect of Plots 3, 4 and 5 for Rs. 88,187.50. 03.04.1968 - Resolution of the Panchayat granting approval for the layout plan. 23.04.1969 - Approval by City Improvement Trust Board of the layout plan in Sy. No. 4/1 in respect of the entire area 17 acres 11 guntas on the application filed by D. Rangadhamulu Naidu. 28.06.1969 - The father Rangadhamulu Naidu after having purchased the property from Archbishop as mentioned supra sold the above property in favour of one Ramamurthy. 11.08.1969 - Receipt granted by A.M. Ramamurthy to D.R. Naidu for Rs. 450/- being rent and interest for July, 1969. 28.07.1970 - Receipt granted by A.M. Ramamurthy to D.R. Naidu for Rs. 5,000/- being part consideration on account of sale deed. 01.05.1971 - One of the sons of Rangadhamulu Naidu namely D.R. Raghavendra purchased the land on behalf of joint family from A.M. Ramamurthy. Revenue records entered in the name of Raghavendra. 22.05.1972 - Modified Outline Development Plan of Bangalore approved by State Government showing location of land facing Old Madras Road, i.e. including the petition land, as a developed land and not an agriculture land. 30.12.1974 - Application filed by B.M. Krishnamurthy former Chairman of Byappanahalli Group Panchayat in No. LRF 1681 of 1974-75 against Archbishop of Bangalore and D. Ramadamulu Naidu before land Tribunal claiming occupancy right in 9.12 acres in Sy. No. 4/1. 13.01.1975 - Plan of Layout approved by Byappanahalli Panchayat and signed by the then Chairman V.M. Krishnamurthy (Petitioner in Writ Petition 28175 of 1991). No. 4/1. 13.01.1975 - Plan of Layout approved by Byappanahalli Panchayat and signed by the then Chairman V.M. Krishnamurthy (Petitioner in Writ Petition 28175 of 1991). 10.06.1975 - Memo of partition and sketch signed by the 4 sons of D.R. Naidu confirming the oral partition of 9.12 acres. 04.10.1975 - Plan of Sy. No. 4/1 approved by the Deputy Commissioner. 05.03.1976 - Doddaiah claiming to be a tenant in respect of 9.12 acres filed Form No. 7 showing Raghavendra as the owner in question as his name alone appeared in the Revenue Records. 1981 - Written statement filed by D.R. Naidu. 1981 - Deposition of Agent of D.R. Naidu. 01.12.1981 - Land Tribunal, Bangalore South orders notice to the Landlord D.R. Raghavendra fixing the date of hearing as 29.12.1981. The Land Tribunal orders notice to Sridhar returnable by 19.01.1981. 19.01.1981 - Notice served on Sridhar. 11.11.1981 - The Power of Attorney in favour of Sridhar registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Bangalore South. 29.12.1981 - The order sheet of the Tribunal disclosed that the notice to Respondent-landlord was refused to be received with representation that such notice be served on one Sridhar a Power of Attorney of the landlord. 04.01.1982 - Writ Petition No. 1783 of 1982 filed by Krishnamurthy challenging the order rejecting his application for grant. 16.03.1982 - Objection to the Writ Petition filed by D. Rangadhamulu Naidu. 03.07.1986 - High Court transfers the Writ Petition to Appellate Authority. 25.07.1986 - The statement of the claimant/tenant Doddaiah recorded by the Tribunal. 29.08.1986 - Appeal is taken up by the Appellate Authority and numbered as LRA 192 of 1986. Objections were filed by Arch Bishop on 1.3.1989. 08.10.1986 - Statement of Munivenkatappa witness for the applicant recorded by the Tribunal. It transpires that the said Power of Attorney Sridhar appeared before the Tribunal signed the order sheet and also filed the written statement. 12.11.1986 - Land Tribunal passed an order in favour of Doddaiah the claimant/tenant. 06.01.1987 - O.S. No. 156 of 1987 for injunction or alternatively for partition filed by the three brothers Panduranga, Sriman Narayana and Jayaprakash against Raghavendra. 02.02.1987 - Suit compromise declaring that the partition made on 12.5.1975 recorded in the memorandum of partition on 10.6.1975 be confirmed. 31.07.1987 - Naghabhushna and others have filed an application/Miscellaneous Petition in O.S. 156 of 1987 for reviewing and setting aside the judgment and decree. 02.02.1987 - Suit compromise declaring that the partition made on 12.5.1975 recorded in the memorandum of partition on 10.6.1975 be confirmed. 31.07.1987 - Naghabhushna and others have filed an application/Miscellaneous Petition in O.S. 156 of 1987 for reviewing and setting aside the judgment and decree. 1987 - Three brothers of D.R. Raghavendra filed suits O.S. Nos. 10513, 10514 and 10515 of 1987 seeking decree for injunction against alienees. 05.02.1988 - Order passed by the City Civil Court. 24.06.1988 - High Court dismissed Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 488 of 1988 filed against the above order. 01.03.1989 - Objections filed by the Arch Bishop of Bangalore. 06.06.1992 - Proceedings of Tahsildar stating that no LRF application had been received in the Land Tribunal as having been filed by any person in respect of Sy. No. 4/1B. 08.07.1992 - Rangadhamulu Naidu (father) dies. 19.10.1992 - Orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the application of R. Jayaprakash sanctioning conversion of 2 acres 13 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 for non-agricultural purpose. 26.07.1994 - Miscellaneous Petition filed as above said for review dismissed. 21.04.1995 - Civil Revision Petition filed against such dismissal allowed and compromise decree dated 2.2.1987 set aside by the High Court. 06.02.1996 - The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 1489 of 1996 set aside the High Court judgment and the SLP was disposed of holding that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the compromise decree in its revisional jurisdiction. 06.03.1997 - Injunction filed by one Dhamodhara against the three brothers L Rs of the 4th brother of Rangadhamulu Naidu was granted. The injunction was with reference to two sites No. 72 and 91 in old Sy. No. 4/1 in plots 3, 4 and 5. 02.06.1998 - Affidavit of S. Srinivasa, former member of Land Tribunal. 02.06.1998 - Affidavit of Y. Krishnappa, former member of Land Tribunal. 19.06.1998 - Affidavit of Special Tahsildar. The above sequence of events disclose, a clear picture of the facts that are available on record. Point No. 1 - Tenancy claimed by Krishnamurthy 64. The tenant Krishnamurthy is aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim by the Tribunal by order dated 30.10.1981 in LRF 1681 of 1974-75. 19.06.1998 - Affidavit of Special Tahsildar. The above sequence of events disclose, a clear picture of the facts that are available on record. Point No. 1 - Tenancy claimed by Krishnamurthy 64. The tenant Krishnamurthy is aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim by the Tribunal by order dated 30.10.1981 in LRF 1681 of 1974-75. Originally challenging that order he filed Writ Petition No. 1783 of 1982 which in course of time was transferred as LRA No. 192 of 1986 which again on transfer to this Court was numbered as Civil Petition 2429 of 1991 and again renumbered as Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991. 65. So far as the writ petition filed by Krishnamurthy is concerned it is practically the appeal against the order of the Tribunal namely LRA No. 192 of 1986. Dealing with such cases as appeal it is necessary to go in detail into facts. 66. The said Krishnamurthy filed Form No. 7 on 30.12.1974 against the deceased Ranghadamulu Naidu seeking occupancy right over 9 acres 12 guntas of land in Sy. No. 4/1 situated in B.M. Kaval village, (hereinafter called in short as 'the land'). It is his claim that he was a tenant in respect of the land and cultivating the same since 16 years under Arch Bishop of Bangalore and the Respondent therein namely D. Ranghadamulu Naidu. The application has been registered as No. LRF No. 1681 of 1974-75. One Lakshminarayana representing Ranghadamulu Naidu as Power of Attorney filed written objections to the claim on 30.9.1981. Reply to the objection was filed on 21.10.1981. Witnesses were examined both on behalf of the Petitioner and Respondent. The specific case of the tenant was that though he has been cultivating on crop share basis 25 years earlier, for about 16 years in the beginning, for about three or four years he raised ragi crop and thereafter there is no cultivation of the land and canal are being done to thrashing. There are huts in the land. As on 1.3.1974 or prior thereto it was not under cultivation. (underlining is mine). His evidence before the Tribunal also discloses the above aspects. This is what he says in the evidence. I came to possession about 16 years back. For about 3-4 years I raised ragi dry crops. Thereafter there is no cultivation of the land and canal are being done to thrashing. (underlining is mine). His evidence before the Tribunal also discloses the above aspects. This is what he says in the evidence. I came to possession about 16 years back. For about 3-4 years I raised ragi dry crops. Thereafter there is no cultivation of the land and canal are being done to thrashing. There are huts in this lands. As on 1.3.1974 it was not under cultivation and just prior thereto. 67. An approved plan for layout filed before the Tribunal by the Respondent was brought to his notice which was filed as Annexure-R.3 to the objection statement of the Respondent wherein the signature of the Krishnamurthy is found under the heading "'APPROVED', Krishnamurthy, 13.4.1975, Chairman, Byappannahalli, Group Panchayat, Bangalore South". (underlining mine) The witness Krishnamurthy confirmed that: The panchayat has approved the plan. As a Chairman, I myself signed. I did not question since the majority opinion prevail. Since the land was left fallow there is no point in getting my name entered in pahani under the land left fallow. 68. The evidence of Lakshminarayana was to the following effect: The Respondent purchased Sy. No. 4/1 measuring 9 acres 12 guntas in the year 1961 from Bishop. Neither Muniswamappa nor Krishnamurthy cultivated the same. One Sanjevappa was examined as Petitioner's witness. He spoke that For the past 10-15 years the same is not under cultivation. The applicant also did not cultivate it since 10-15 years. This land is lying Banjar. Some sheds have come up in the land... There are roads. One Somanna who is the neighbour of the Northern side deposed that: I have seen the land which belonged to Ranghadamulu Naidu. He purchased it from Bishop. The applicant never cultivated it at any time as I know it since 10-12 years. The land is left fallow. We are using it as a playground. One Nallappa another witness also spoke The suit land belongs to Bishop. It was left fallow since 15-18 years. (Examined on 21.10.1981). Prior to that my villagers were doing it. The applicant never cultivated it at any time. Even now it is fallow. Now, it belongs to Rangathadmulu Naidu. He is in possession of the same. In that land 3-4 houses have come. There are also huts (20-25) in the suit land. 69. In the cross examination the witness mentioned: The PA holder has constructed a house by the side of the Hospital. Even now it is fallow. Now, it belongs to Rangathadmulu Naidu. He is in possession of the same. In that land 3-4 houses have come. There are also huts (20-25) in the suit land. 69. In the cross examination the witness mentioned: The PA holder has constructed a house by the side of the Hospital. The entire land is formed into sites. I was told, the entire land is converted. Sites are sold in the entire land. 70. The PA holder examined himself and he mentioned in particular that the applicant never paid any wara to the Respondent. 71. Accepting and relying upon the statement of the applicant himself (1) that the suit land was not under cultivation either on 1.3.1974 or just prior to and that perusal of the entries in the cultivators column of the RTC are in the name of Ranghadamulu Naidu from 1972-75 and (2) the nature of the land was also noted as "Banjaru" right from 1970-71 onwards and finally that there was no dispute against the land being kept fallow since long time, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicant Krishnamurthy for grant of occupancy right. The Tribunal also rendered a finding that there is no proof of cultivation claimed by the tenant by way of any document. On the other hand there has been admission on the part of the applicant about the land being lying Banjaru since 1969-70 till date (1981). Consequently, the provisions of Section 44 of the Land Reforms Act are not applicable and, therefore, exercising power under Sections 45 and 45A of the Land Reforms Act does not arise. Finally, the application was held to be not maintainable under Section 48A (v) read with Section 45 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961. 72. While challenging the above order the learned Counsel relied upon a declaration/affidavit executed by the Ranghadamulu Naidu on 21.6.1978 which was filed before the Tribunal. In the said affidavit, it is mentioned From the time of Archbishop Sri B.M. Krishnamurthy was in possession of the portion of the said Sy. No. 4/1 as tenant and the purchase was subject to the tenancy right as on 17.2.1965 under an agreement to sell the said tenanted portion of Sy. No. 4/1 only. This was stressed to hold that the tenancy was admitted by the purchaser from the Bishop and the tenancy was created by the Bishop himself. No. 4/1 as tenant and the purchase was subject to the tenancy right as on 17.2.1965 under an agreement to sell the said tenanted portion of Sy. No. 4/1 only. This was stressed to hold that the tenancy was admitted by the purchaser from the Bishop and the tenancy was created by the Bishop himself. 73. Whenever an affidavit or statement is sought to be relied upon it should be taken as a whole and not in piecemeal manner. The later portion of the said averment in the affidavit and continuation of the above portion reads The said tenant B.M. Krishnamurthy was put in possession of the said plot after receiving the consideration therefore (An agreement of sale to sell the tenanted portion to Krishnamurthy was referred to in the previous sentence and it was also mentioned that he was put in possession in pursuance of such agreement of sale). Although the sale deed is not formally executed the tenant-purchaser continued to be in possession of the said plot. The entire Sy. No. 4/1 has since been formed into sites and during formation of site land, the said tenanted portion of Sy. No. 4/1 belonged to the said B.M. Krishnamurthy bears six site numbers 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30. 74. The declaration goes on as: "We the declarants have neither rights nor possession of the area of Sy. No. 4/1 which is covered by the said six sites only. Our ownership, possession and right and katha of Sy. No. 4/1 is restricted to survey area of Sy. No. 4/1 minus area covered by the said six sites which belong to said B.M. Krishnamurthy in which six sites we absolutely have no rights, title or interest of any kind and we declare as above". 75. The above declaration primarily proves that the land was not cultivated eversince the purchase on 5.7.1962. Even on 17.2.1965 the tenant Krishnamurthy had entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the above six plots. The very use of the word "plot" only goes to show the land ceases to be non-agricultural in nature. It is also necessary to place on record the fact that the layout plan was signed by the said Krishnamurthy himself as on 13.4.1975 itself, in respect of both 8 acres 01 gunta and 9 acres 12 guntas. This plan is signed by the deceased Rangadhamulu Naidu. It is also necessary to place on record the fact that the layout plan was signed by the said Krishnamurthy himself as on 13.4.1975 itself, in respect of both 8 acres 01 gunta and 9 acres 12 guntas. This plan is signed by the deceased Rangadhamulu Naidu. The witness above named mentioned about the conversion also. 76. These factors have not been questioned nor challenged by Krishnamurthy. It is also worthwhile to note that the genuineness or otherwise of the plan and layout has not been challenged at all by any of the parties much less Krishnamurthy himself. In fact, one of the copies of the plan bears the seal of the panchayat and it shows as well the six sites referred to in the affidavit. The said sites has been marked with red colour near the border abutting old Madras Road. This conclusively prove the urban nature of the land. 77. In the registered agreement dated 3.7.1961 filed before the Tribunal executed by Rangadhamulu Naidu with the CITB Bangalore represented by the Chairman, it is mentioned: Whereas the first party (Naidu) applied to Second Party (CITB) for issuing a no objection certificate for conversion of land measuring 17 acres 11 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 Binnamangala, Manavarthakaval, Bangalore South for the purpose of construction of the Industrial building and execute other works and prayed for permission to convert the same for industrial purposes that would become available according to the conditions laid down by the CITB., Bangalore. Certain conditions were mentioned. This again goes to show that as early as on 3.7.1961 itself the land ceased to be an agricultural land. This recital again confirms the finding of the Tribunal as true. 78. In the copy of the registration copy of the sale deed dated 1.10.1965 filed by the Arch Bishop Bangalore (presently the Most Rev. Lourdhuswamy) in favour D. Rangadhamulu Naidu, reference has been made to the vacant plots which is the suit land. The delay in execution of such sale deed was referred as due to pendency of the writ petition in Writ Petition No. 145 of 1962 wherein stay was ordered of sale and which writ petition came to be dismissed on 23.11.1964. Lourdhuswamy) in favour D. Rangadhamulu Naidu, reference has been made to the vacant plots which is the suit land. The delay in execution of such sale deed was referred as due to pendency of the writ petition in Writ Petition No. 145 of 1962 wherein stay was ordered of sale and which writ petition came to be dismissed on 23.11.1964. It is also mentioned in the said sale deed that The purchaser (Rangadhamulu Naidu) on the strength of the agreement of sale and with the consent of the vendor applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore for the conversion of the Sy. No. 4/1, of Binnamangala, Manavarthekaval, Krishnarajapuram into a non-agricultural holding which on reference by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore to the CITB, Bangalore was ordered with no objection endorsement under Letter No. A-II/CM/64-61-62, dated 6.7.1961. Thus, it is seen that as on 6.7.1961 the land was non- agricultural in nature. 79. It is also specifically mentioned that As the property was owned by the religious and charitable institution, the schedule property is free from any effect of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. The above recital also prove that i) the land was non-agricultural land as early as in 1961. ii) It was not tenanted. iii) Layout plan has been sanctioned. iv) The land was Banjaru and completely vacant and possession was with the title holder viz. Rangadhamulu Naidu excepting six plots of the land in possession of the Agreement holder B.M. Krishnamurthy who claimed tenancy. 80. The entries in RTC records also cannot be ignored and the inference under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, has not been rebutted by any positive evidence. The RT Cs from 1973-80 shows that Sy. No. 4/1 Kathedars are Rangadhamulu Naidu, Ramamurthy and Raghavendra. The irresistible inference is, therefore, neither Krishnamurthy nor anybody else could claim tenancy of the land so as to become eligible to avail the benefit of Land Reforms Act and conferment of occupancy right. The RTC for 1976-77 upto 1978-79 and even for earlier period from 1970-71 has been filed before the Tribunal and this only discloses the name of Ranghadhamulu Naidu to the entire extent of 17 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 in column 12(2). The RTC for 1976-77 upto 1978-79 and even for earlier period from 1970-71 has been filed before the Tribunal and this only discloses the name of Ranghadhamulu Naidu to the entire extent of 17 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 in column 12(2). It is significant to note that soon after filing writ petition Krishnamurthy himself filed an application for injunction against the Respondent for putting up any construction thereby indicating that construction can go on in the land and it was no longer an agricultural land. Before the Appellate Authority the appeal preferred by the said Krishnamurthy (who died by then and his L Rs came on record in LRA 29 of 1986), affidavits were filed by one Prakash indicating that he had already purchased site Nos. 15 and 38 on 8.9.1981 and that the land ceased to be agricultural land as early as in 1962. Another purchaser by name K.T. Srinivasa Rangan who is said to have purchased site Nos. 133 and 144, 134 and 143 on 20.9.1981 and 1.10.1984 spoke to the same fact in his affidavit. So also one Jagannath filed an affidavit claiming to have purchased Site Nos. 22 and 32 on 7.9.1981 in the layout formed in Sy. No. 4/1 namely petition land reiterating the same contentions. One Venkatachalapathy purchased site Nos. 21 and 32 under sale deed dated 25.9.1981 and one Nalini Wife of Sridhar claiming to be the purchaser of site Nos. 20 and 33 by sale deed dated 8.9.1981. One Subadramma purchased site Nos. 70 and 92 on 11.9.1981. D. Ramanjeyulu purchased site Nos. 17 and 36 by sale deed dated 4.9.1981. All of them have filed affidavits mentioning about their purchase and also praying to implead them as parties. These affidavits clearly and equally prove that the land has been subject to layout as early as in 1961 and lay out plots have been sold to various persons subsequently. 81. Before the Appellate Authority the Archbishop himself has filed a statement of objection in LRA 192 of 1986 on 1.3.1989. It was the statement of by the said Archbishop himself that out of 17 acres 20 guntas, 9 guntas was phut karab and 17 acres 11 guntas were dry land and the same was personally cultivated without tenants. On 5.7.1962 the then Archbishop of Bangalore the most Rev. Dr. It was the statement of by the said Archbishop himself that out of 17 acres 20 guntas, 9 guntas was phut karab and 17 acres 11 guntas were dry land and the same was personally cultivated without tenants. On 5.7.1962 the then Archbishop of Bangalore the most Rev. Dr. Thomas Pothacamury in his representative capacity as the Arch Bishop of Bangalore diocese sold an extent of 8 acres 12 guntas of land out of the Sy. No. 4/1 in favour of D. Rangadhamulu Naidu. The remaining extent was sold on 1.10.1965. It is seen that the sale deeds were executed prior to the enactment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 which came into force only on 2.10.1965 (vide S.O. 3166, dated 13.9.1965). Consequently, the provisions of this Act are not applicable to the transaction entered upon by the Arch Bishop in favour of the purchaser. The application filed under Section 48A(i) Form No. 7 by Krishnamurthy on 30.12.1974 mentioned the name of Arch Bishop as landlord is not true. On the date of filing of the application there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant. The said Arch Bishop also was not called upon by the Tribunal to file his objections. Only in Writ Petition No. 1782 of 1982 Arch Bishop was made a party. By such transaction, the Arch Bishop himself had made it clear that it was a non-agricultural land away from the reach of Land Reforms Act. 82. In the additional affidavit filed it was mentioned that Most Rev. Dr. Thomas Pothacamury Arch Bishop of Bangalore ruled the diocese from 31.1.1943 to the end of 1967. His successor Dr. Lourdhuswamy ruled the diocese from 1967 to 1.5.1971 and his successor was Dr. P. Arokiaswamy who was Arch Bishop from 10.2.1972 to October 1986. The stand of such Religious heads cannot be easily ignored. 83. One Jayaprakash also filed an application before the Appellate Authority for impleading him as a party stating that he has purchased site Nos. 18 and 35 on 3.9.1981. He got possession of site from D.R. Raghavendra. Katha was changed in his name and has obtained sanction plan for building residential house and the same was constructed. It was also pointed out that Krishnamurthy in his capacity as Chairman of the Panchayat have approved the plan in the name of Raghavendra. 18 and 35 on 3.9.1981. He got possession of site from D.R. Raghavendra. Katha was changed in his name and has obtained sanction plan for building residential house and the same was constructed. It was also pointed out that Krishnamurthy in his capacity as Chairman of the Panchayat have approved the plan in the name of Raghavendra. The sale deeds referred to by impleading applicants were filed along with the memo. 84. These documents also go to show that the land was non-agricultural land not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 85. In the original Writ Petition No. 1783 of 1982 which was filed seeking to quash the impugned order of rejection of tenancy, nine grounds were made. a) It was claimed that the declaration-affidavit admits tenancy of the Petitioner (Krishnamurthy). b) The Petitioner has been using the land for agricultural purpose and witness spoke to the fact. c) The land is capable of being used for agricultural purposes. Consequently it is within the jurisdiction of the Act. Even assuming the land is fallow the land it cannot be called as non-agricultural land. d) Lakshminarayana did not produce the power of Attorney of Rangathamulu Naidu. e) the 4th Respondent Rangadhamulu Naidu is non-agriculturist on his showing. f) The deposition was not recorded by the Chairman. g) There has been substantial failure of justice. h) The fundamental rights are violated. 86. Excepting these grounds no other ground was urged. 87. We have already seen that the affidavit referred to above should be taken together and not part by part. A complete and coherent reading of the affidavit discloses the nature of the land being non-agricultural under the Petitioner Krishnamurthy and being an agreement holder to purchase the land, his tenancy having come to an end by such agreement of sale. The witnesses of the Petitioner himself deposed against him and even the Petitioner himself has admitted that he has kept the land fallow 3-4 years prior to 1974 and on the appointed day it was neither cultivated nor used for any agricultural operations or purposes. The pleading and evidence being the same, the challenge now made is not entertainable. The other challenges do not merit any credence. 88. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mrs. Suguna relied upon the case of ILR 1980 Kar 156, Gurubasappa Ningappa Banakar v. The Land Tribunal and Ors. The pleading and evidence being the same, the challenge now made is not entertainable. The other challenges do not merit any credence. 88. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mrs. Suguna relied upon the case of ILR 1980 Kar 156, Gurubasappa Ningappa Banakar v. The Land Tribunal and Ors. Dharwar to the following effect; Since the definition of land in Section 2(18) of the Act includes land used for a purpose subservient to agriculture and the definition of the word "cultivate" includes improving agricultural produce. We are unable to accept the contention of Sri Thipperudrappa that unless the Petitioner was carrying on basic operations like tilling, sowing and planting in this land, he could not be regarded as cultivating the land for the purpose of Section 45 of the Act. This ruling will not come to aid of the Petitioner as there is no proof of any cultivation or stacking of hay. The finding in this regard rendered by the Tribunal is factually correct and does not call for any interference. 89. Another decision relied on by the Counsel for the Petitioner is State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Sarjoo Devi and Others, AIR 1977 SC 2196 to the following effect; A bare perusal of the definition of the word "land" as contained in Section 3(14) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which is reproduced above would show that it is not necessary for the land to fall within the purview of this definition that it must be actually under cultivation or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture. The requirement of the definition is in our opinion, amply satisfied if the land is either held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture. The word "held" occurring in the above definition which is a past participle of the word "hold" is of vide important. In the Unabridged Edition of "The Random House Dictionary of the English Language", the word "hold" has been inter alia stated to mean "to have the ownership or use of; keep as one's own". In "the Dictionary of English Law" by Earl Jowitt the word "hold" has been interpreted meaning "to have as tenant. In the aforesaid case para-11 of the judgment clearly mentions availability of evidence of cultivation and payment of rent against proper receipts and paying revenue and the fact that the land was held for purposes connected with agriculture. In "the Dictionary of English Law" by Earl Jowitt the word "hold" has been interpreted meaning "to have as tenant. In the aforesaid case para-11 of the judgment clearly mentions availability of evidence of cultivation and payment of rent against proper receipts and paying revenue and the fact that the land was held for purposes connected with agriculture. Apart from the fact the decision arose out of U.P. Land Reforms Act. The fact available in that case is totally absent in the present case. 90. Reliance was place upon by the Counsel for the Petitioner in the case in Bheemachar Vs. Land Tribunal, Bagalkot, 1980 (1) KarLJ 47 is to the following effect: Where the Land Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the owner of the lands was also present while making the impugned order, whereas he was not present it is an obvious error. Where the Tribunal has not considered certain documents produced in the case and have not discussed and considered the oral evidence and the findings are not supported by reasons, the order is not sustainable. In fact, the first portion about the absence of the owner is enough to set aside the order of the Tribunal. Having considered the case in detail this dictum does not apply. 91. On 22.11.2000 the learned Counsel for Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991 produced a xerox copy of a note bearing No. BDA/TPA/506/1979-80 which is styled as UR NOTE. Adverting to the above subject, I write to state that the authority has its meeting held on 26.12.1979 has resolved as follows: The sanction accorded to the private layout in Sy. No. 4/1 of Binnamangala Manavarthekaval, is withdrawn with immediate effect and the concerned Land Acquisition Officer be directed to acquire the said land. Hence, you are requested to acquire the said land with immediate effect as per the authority resolution No. 621 dated 26.12.1979. Instead of helping Petitioner, it only confirms that the private layout have been sanctioned in respect of petition land long prior to 1979 and that was sought to be withdrawn and direction has been to acquire the said land. This note only goes to show that i) Private layout has been sanctioned thus nullifying the theory of an agricultural land as claimed by Krishnamurthy; ii) The land acquisition proceeding to use it for residential purpose was being revived. 92. This note only goes to show that i) Private layout has been sanctioned thus nullifying the theory of an agricultural land as claimed by Krishnamurthy; ii) The land acquisition proceeding to use it for residential purpose was being revived. 92. Another document filed by the Counsel is a xerox copy of the original affidavit filed by the D. Rangadhamulu Naidu and Raghavendra under their signatures. This again is against the Petitioner. i) It shows that Krishnamurthy became the purchaser of certain plots under the agreement of sale. The wordings used are "the said tenant B.M. Krishnamurthy was put in possession of the said plot after receiving the consideration therefore". Although the sale deed is not formally executed, the tenant cum purchaser continues to be in possession of the said plot. Thus, it is seen that the possession of Krishnamurthy is only of particular sites namely 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30 as agreement holder and the question of tenancy does not arise. This further indicates that holding of Krishnamurthy stood reduced to only the aforesaid sites. 93. Thus, viewed from any angle, no case is made out by the Petitioner to interfere with the order of the Land Tribunal rejecting his claim. 94. Consequently, confirming the order of the Tribunal this Writ Petition No. 28175 of 1991 is dismissed. Thus, point No. 1 is answered against the tenant-Petitioner. Point No. 2 Grant in favour of Doddaiah 95. This point can be straight away answered in favour of the Petitioner and against the tenant in the light of the finding rendered by me in the petition filed by Krishnamurthy that: i) the land is not a agricultural land; ii) there was no tenant on 1.3.1974 earlier; iii) there was no cultivation on the appointed date and iv) being vacant land the owners were alone in possession of the same and v) all the revenue records indicate that the land was not tenanted at all. 96. However, let me consider the contentions of the Petitioner in all the four writ petitions who represent their father Rangadhamulu Naidu on the one side and the L Rs of the deceased tenant Doddaiah on the other side. 97. Form No. 7 was filed by Doddaiah on 5.3.1976 showing Raghavendra as owner claiming that he has been cultivating the land 10-15 years prior to such filing. 97. Form No. 7 was filed by Doddaiah on 5.3.1976 showing Raghavendra as owner claiming that he has been cultivating the land 10-15 years prior to such filing. A perusal of order sheet filed as Annexure-N to Writ Petition No. 20220 of 1991 show the number of the case as 3627-76:77. But notice itself was issued returnable on 29.12.1981 only and such an order was passed on 1.12.1981. Why it had taken 5 years to take the application on file is not explained. There are three more endorsement of adjournments on 29.12.1981 and 19.1.1982. On 29.12.1981 it is mentioned that Raghavendra refused to receive summon and directed to summon on his power of attorney. On 19.1.1982 the matter was kept for serving notice on Sridhar. Then there was a gap of nearly 5 years and the case was taken on 25.7.1986. On 25.7.1986 the order sheet shows that the PA appeared and produced the Power of Attorney deed dated 11.11.1981. On 8.10.1986 the statement of Munivenkatappa and Munikrishnappa were recorded and the impugned order came to be passed on 12.11.1986. It has taken nearly 10 years to pass such an order. 98. The claim that Doddaiah was a tenant for 10-15 years earlier to 1976, if at all true, must be under the ownership of the Rangadhamulu Naidu and not Raghavendra Naidu. Therefore the Form filed against the wrong person showing him as landlord for entire land cannot be considered as a proper forum in the eye of law. 99. It is significant to note that application filed by Doddaiah was taken up for hearing on 1.12.1981, after the application filed by Krishnamurthy was disposed of on 3.10.1981. The application of Doddaiah was dated 5.3.1976. No reason is available as to why this application was taken up after the disposal of Krishnamurthy's application holding that the land is not agricultural land. In the Form No. 7 filed by Doddaiah, the entire extent is not mentioned. It just mentions 9 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 of Binnamangala, Manavarthekaval. Whether Sy. No. 4/1 is of the entire extent of 9 acres 12 guntas or it is only a part is not disclosed, no boundary is given. Thus on the question of vagueness alone the application ought to have been rejected. 100. It just mentions 9 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 of Binnamangala, Manavarthekaval. Whether Sy. No. 4/1 is of the entire extent of 9 acres 12 guntas or it is only a part is not disclosed, no boundary is given. Thus on the question of vagueness alone the application ought to have been rejected. 100. Coming to the deposition of Doddaiah he had given Eastern boundary as plot No. 6, indicating thereby that the lands are "plot" and not "land" in the ordinary sense of the term. It is also his definite evidence that; This land is dry land. I had not paid land Revenue in respect of the said land. Due to absence of rain at the proper time, certain years I did not cultivate. That means, even if cultivated the land did not yield good crop. Thus, on his own showing it is proved that there is no cultivation over the land and the land was dry land and, consequently, no occupancy right could have been granted. His answers are also vague and there is no specific evidence to show that on the appointed day, namely 1.3.1974 he was cultivating the said land as a tenant. 101. His further evidence on the question of record of rights is a very bald if not bold answer I do not know about the record of rights Though he would further say that he has submitted the application 5-6 times to Tahsildar, he did not know what happened to them. Thus, on his own showing, the record of rights do not stand on his name and no revenue record is produced to show tenancy in support of his claim. 102. As per record available in the proceeding the fact one Sridhar was Power of Attorney was brought to the notice of the Tribunal only when the summons sent to Raghavendra were returned. If really Doddaiah knew about the Power of Attorney earlier to the filing of the application under Form No. 7, then he could have sued the opponent through his PA. Infact, the records reveal that Doddaiah could not even locate or find out the correct address of Sridhar for more than four years. But in the evidence, surprisingly he would claim that: Sridhar had asked me to pay rent whenever the crop is failed. Infact, the records reveal that Doddaiah could not even locate or find out the correct address of Sridhar for more than four years. But in the evidence, surprisingly he would claim that: Sridhar had asked me to pay rent whenever the crop is failed. But I told him that I had applied for grant of occupancy right and there is a rule that after filing of tenancy application rent should not be paid". "Sridhar asked me to leave the said land as a record of rights did not stand in my name. This statement exposes the hallowness of the claim made by Doddaiah. He also admits that he did not pay the rent. Such evidence has been unfortunately not taken note by the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal records a finding that: The disputed land in Sy. No. 4/1 measures 17 acres 20 guntas and out of total extent 9 guntas is karab and remaining is 17 acres 11 guntas. Out of this extent 8 acres 1 gunta has already been converted for non-agricultural purpose and conversion has been granted. If this was noted by the Tribunal, then it should have verified from the records as to what has been really converted. It is seen from the record that under memo No. A-7 CON 14 of 1961-62 dated 6.7.1964 it is intimated to Ranghadamulu Naidu as a Power of Attorney holder of Arch Bishop of Bangalore that No objection certificate for Conversion of land measuring 17 acres 11 guntas in Sy. No. 4/1 of Binnamangala, Manavarthekaval for Industrial purpose is granted subject to usual conditions of the Board and to the conditions agreed by the Party in the agreement executed, registered as No. 1814, dated 3.7.1961 in Sub-Registrar's Office, Bangalore, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District. 103. Evidently the Tribunal has seen the order in ALN;SR-1255 of 1965-66 dated 21.3.1966 issued by the office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South, which is the conversion certificate which was issued in pursuance of memorandum DD.ALR:SR. 1801 dated 27.1.1966 in favour of D. Rangadhamulu Naidu. This certificate, nodoubt, only refers to 8 acres 8 guntas (wrongly mentioned as 8 acres 1 gunta). Had it been noted by the Tribunal as to what happened to the remaining portion which is claimed as tenanted by Doddaiah, the truth would have come out. Even the calculation is not correct. 1801 dated 27.1.1966 in favour of D. Rangadhamulu Naidu. This certificate, nodoubt, only refers to 8 acres 8 guntas (wrongly mentioned as 8 acres 1 gunta). Had it been noted by the Tribunal as to what happened to the remaining portion which is claimed as tenanted by Doddaiah, the truth would have come out. Even the calculation is not correct. They have taken 17 acres 11 guntas and deducted 8 acres 1 gunta and arrived at a balance of 9 acres 10 guntas. This is arithmetically wrong. If it is 17 acres 20 guntas then the balance is 9 acres 12 guntas, if it is 17 acres 11 guntas then the balance will be 9 acres 3 guntas. This wrong calculation exposes non-application of the mind even in the arithmetical calculation by the Tribunal. Another finding rendered is that; Sridhar has accepted the applicant is cultivating the land. This finding has no material nor supported by any evidence. In fact the alleged Sridhar was not examined at all. From where such a finding has flown is not understandable. There is a reference nodoubt, in the order that The land Tribunal has examined the written statement made by GPA holder Sridhar. But that factum is denied by the Sridhar himself. Such a denial has to be accepted, as Sridhar representing the purchasers, including his wife of the sites of land even in 1981 could not have made statement against his own interest, if really he was the person who is said to have appeared before the Tribunal. 104. The objection statement of Sridhar was filed before this Court as on 9.6.1997 complaining impersonation. But there is no reply statement denying the same. In fact, a reference has been made by the said Sridhar, to a mahazar drawn by a Taluk Surveyor on 1.4.1989 and signed by sons of Doddaiah, with regard to the same land for the purpose of identification of sites Nos. 18 and 35. It is again necessary to note that the order sheet does not indicate that on appearance Sridhar filed any kind of statement. 105. On the other hand the voluminous documents filed by Sridhar along with the objection statement indicate the falsity of the claim of tenancy. (1) Reference to the resolution of the BDA dated 23.4.1969 wherein they have approved the layout plan in Sy. No. 4/1 of Binnamangala Manavarthekaval village, submitted by Rangadhamulu Naidu. 105. On the other hand the voluminous documents filed by Sridhar along with the objection statement indicate the falsity of the claim of tenancy. (1) Reference to the resolution of the BDA dated 23.4.1969 wherein they have approved the layout plan in Sy. No. 4/1 of Binnamangala Manavarthekaval village, submitted by Rangadhamulu Naidu. (2) Annexure-R.1 filed therein evidences the above fact and (3) that endorsement was signed by Commissioner BDA Ltr.BDA/SCCY/248 of 1989-90, dated 9.8.1989. (4) Another important document to be noted is the modified Out Line Development plan of Bangalore bearing No. ODP 2/5-72 approved by the Government on 22.5.1972. (5) This plan indicates that the suit land was non-agricultural land and the layout plan is indicated and marked therein. It will certainly be not proper for the revenue authority as is sought to be made out in the impugned order to have ignored this essential and important document which is on the Government file. Again one wonders as to why the layout plan approved by the panchayat, then existing, namely Byappanahalli group panchayat, has not been considered by the Tribunal. Under the British system when the revenue department was established all particulars under the Sun in respect of the lands in a village or country are statistically maintained. In such a system it is unbelievable that the Tribunal which is basically Revenue oriented was not aware of anything that was happening around it and it was closing its eyes and ears to the records and passed the impugned order. In the circumstances, the inference that the entire proceedings is concocted or fabricated, cannot be ruled out. 106. The several documents filed including the affidavit of the Tribunal members all go to establish the improbability of the existence of such a proceeding and order. These reasons are sufficient, to set aside the order and hold even such an order could not have been passed by any prudent Tribunal. 107. It is also significant to note that once the Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the land is not an agricultural land, such a finding is certainly binding on subsequent Tribunal and it amounts to constructive resjudicata as well. 108. A question has been raised as to whether this Court can go into the fact in so detail a manner. But as held by Supreme Court in Ramachandra Ganpat Shinde and another Vs. 108. A question has been raised as to whether this Court can go into the fact in so detail a manner. But as held by Supreme Court in Ramachandra Ganpat Shinde and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1994 SC 1673 , "Whenever a fraud is discovered it is primary duty of any judicial body in particular this Court to set the same right by making a detailed study and depth consideration of the matter in issues". Thus, in detail I find that the order impugned does not stand the test of veracity, truth in the eye of law. The same is therefore liable to be quashed. 109. One more question raised regarding the delay. The question of delay will occur only when such an order is served on the party effected or his L Rs as per the mandatory provision of Section 48A(6) of the Act. Such a specific provisions will have no meaning if service is not effected and no order is sent to the Respondent against whom such an order is sought to be made. 110. It is also equally interesting to note that the law of Land Reforms and the proceeding in the Tribunal normally extend to a period of two decades if not three as could be seen from number of writ petitions that has come for consideration before this Court. There has been several changes in the procedure and an ordinary litigant is not expected to cope up with such changes, if not the lawyers. 111. Before concluding on facts it is necessary to note that Annexures-32 and 33 filed by Sridhar dated 22.10.1960. It is a memorandum submitted by 42 residents of Srinivaspura alias Suddagunta Palya to the Deputy Commissioner stating that Sy. No. 4/1 was sought to be acquired for double road and also for Aero Engine Factory. They further represented that the Government and the Land Acquisition Officer had earlier promised to acquire 10 acres out of the petition land to provide house sites for the memorialists. This only proves that the land was not agricultural land in 1960. Another important point is that the Doddaiah the deceased tenant is signatory to No. 20 and Akkaiamma his wife signatory to No. 42 in memorandum. Both the signatures were compared by the Counsel and found to be the same. This only proves that the land was not agricultural land in 1960. Another important point is that the Doddaiah the deceased tenant is signatory to No. 20 and Akkaiamma his wife signatory to No. 42 in memorandum. Both the signatures were compared by the Counsel and found to be the same. There is also no denial of these Annexures by the L Rs of Doddaiah who are Respondents herein. If really Doddaiah was the tenant of the petition land as is now claimed then he would not have signed the memorandum. In this juncture we are made to believe that the declaration affidavit was signed by the Rangadhamulu Naidu not of his volition but he was asked to sign the affidavit already prepared. This memorandum puts an end to all claims made by the deceased Doddaiah. 112. Coming to the rulings relied upon by the Petitioners the dictum laid in M.S. Narayanagouda Vs. Girijamma and Another, AIR 1977 Kant 58 which is to the following: Where the applicant for registry as occupant claims any specific property, which is not a whole survey number or a sub-division of a survey number, that party ought to give the boundaries and description so as to clearly identify the property. If a party merely states that out of 5 acres 31 guntas of land, he is in possession of 3 acres, it is not possible to identify that property and adduce evidence whether or not the property claimed by the person was cultivated by the party claiming as tenant. It is not also possible to identify the land said to have vested in the Government under Section 4(1). When the record of rights pertaining to the land in question shows that the land has been in personal cultivation of the land owner and that it was not a tenanted land and the name of the person claiming to be tenant does not find any place therein the law draws a presumption that the statement contained in the record of rights is true until the contrary is proved. The above ruling lays down that absence of proper identification makes order in nullity. 113. On the question of presumption under Section 133, the dictum laid in Srikante Gowda vs. Land Reforms Tribunal, Thirthahalli and Others, 1977 (2) KarLJ 126 . The above ruling lays down that absence of proper identification makes order in nullity. 113. On the question of presumption under Section 133, the dictum laid in Srikante Gowda vs. Land Reforms Tribunal, Thirthahalli and Others, 1977 (2) KarLJ 126 . Where Land Tribunal which is a quasi judicial authority which has to decide the property rights of parties, ignores the statutory presumption under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act, and relies on a document which is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the issue such a decision is vitiated and the same is liable to quashed. 114. On the question of latches and delay reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited vs. District Board, Bhojpur and Others, AIR 1990 SC 802. The question thus for consideration is whether the Appellant should be deprived of the relief on account of the latches and delay. It is true that the Appellant could not have even when instituting the suit agitated the question of legality of the demands and claim relief in respect of the earlier years while challenging the demand for the subsequent years in the writ petition. But the failure to do so by itself in the circumstances of the case in our opinion, does not disentitle the Appellant from the remedies open under the law. xxxx xxxx xxxx The rule which says that the Court may not enquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. It will all depend on what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose. The principle on which the relief to the party on the grounds of latches or delay is denied is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the Petitioner should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to determine delay in such cases is that the Petitioner should come to the writ Court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any latches or negligence. The test is not to physical running of time. The real test to determine delay in such cases is that the Petitioner should come to the writ Court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any latches or negligence. The test is not to physical running of time. Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exists, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of latches. 115. On the question of delay laid down in Basavaraj Fakkirappa Manvi vs. Managing Director, KSRTC, ILR 1990 Kar 2020. Keeping this provision of directive principles of State policy, if delay has not been on account of slumber or negligence of applicant and if some delay has taken place due to the reasons of adopting even wrong or mistaken course if making representations after representations in the absence of due and proper advise the citizens are not to be deprived of the justice, social or economic or otherwise. They are entitled or found to be entitled to get and in such a case none should be denied the relief, unless latches are unexhorable and unexplained by facts. Thus, in my opinion, the objection of the learned Counsel for the Respondent to the effect that there has been some delay and the petition has to be dismissed on account of delay is without substance, because here it is not a case where it can be said that the Petitioner had been negligent in pursuing his case. 116. The Division Bench ruling of this Court in Subba Rao vs. Balarame Gowda and Others, 1999 (1) KCCR 5 is to the following effect; The question is whether the Respondents 1 and 2 have been in possession of the lands even after such delivery in favour of the landlord. It is seen that no revenue receipt showing the payment of land revenue nor any guttige receipt showing that they paid guttige amount is filed. The tenants contended that they have adduced oral evidence of the adjacent cultivator to show that they have been in possession of the land since last 30 years. If a person is in possession of the land definitely his name would be entered in the revenue records particularly when he is in occupation or atleast he would have paid the land revenue to show that he is in possession of the land or in some cases. If a person is in possession of the land definitely his name would be entered in the revenue records particularly when he is in occupation or atleast he would have paid the land revenue to show that he is in possession of the land or in some cases. When the persons in possession of the land obtain manures showing that they are in possession of the land or loans are obtained on the basis of the land. Their names would find a place in the records. No such evidence is adduced before the Land Reforms Tribunal except the oral evidence of the tenant and the adjacent cultivator. On the other hand the documentary evidence produced by the landlord shows that he is the owner of the land. He was put in possession back by the Court. Therefore the contention of the tenants that they are in possession is not tenable. 117. On the question of latches the Division Bench ruling of this Court S. Vasudeva, Advocate vs. Government of Karnataka and Others, 1999 (1) KCCR 251 is to the following effect; As the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, no limitation provided for involving the jurisdiction under the said Article. As the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, no limitation is provided for invoking the jurisdiction under the said Article. However equitable principle of delay has been applied by the Constitutional Courts, as a rule of discretion. The delay in approaching the Court is a rule of practice and not a rule of law. Delay has been held to be not an absolute bar where it is satisfactorily explained or where lack of jurisdiction or the illegality complained of his patent or where the litigant is shown to have been prevented from approaching the Court on account of the promises made assurances given and hopes assured. The delay would also not come in the way of the Court in granting the relief where the violation alleged is found to be of a fundamental right. The delay would also not be a ground to reject the petition when the facts brought to the notice of the Court are shocking which if not remedied are apprehended to shaken the faith of the citizen in the rule of law. The delay would also not be a ground to reject the petition when the facts brought to the notice of the Court are shocking which if not remedied are apprehended to shaken the faith of the citizen in the rule of law. In a petition which is proved to have been bonafidely filed in public interest, the Court may appropriately mould the relief instead of rejecting the petition. No hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the delay and each case is required to be decided according to its circumstances, keeping in mind the paramount object of administering the justice and for the preservation of the rule of law. Technicalities of law cannot be permitted to obstruct the course of justice. Various High Courts in the country have held that when a writ is sought on the ground of violation of fundamental right, the breach should be regarded to be a continuing wrong where the question of limitation would not arise. The question of limitation may not be relevant where the action complained of is shown to have been resorted to, accomplished stealthily and under dubious circumstances. To disentitle a person in getting relief on the ground of delay it has to be first ascertained whether he was not diligent in approaching the Court at the earliest. Delay however would be a relevant consideration in declining to grant the relief where the action complained of is shown to be personally affecting the person approaching the Court. In the light of the position of law regarding delay, as noted hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the present petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of delay and laches. To arrive at this conclusion we have been persuaded and impressed by the importance of the matter involved and far reaching effects of the consequential orders which may be passed in this case in the interest of justice, equity and good conscious, for supremacy of law and strengthening the democratic institutions intended to achieve the goal set forth in the Constitution of the country. 118. On the question of an order being nullity for want of jurisdiction, the dictum of the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. 118. On the question of an order being nullity for want of jurisdiction, the dictum of the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others, AIR 1954 SC 340 is to the following effect; The answer to these contentions must depend on what the position in law is when a Court entertains a suit or an appeal over which it has no jurisdiction and what the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is on that position. It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial or the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. As earlier order of the Tribunal has held that the land is non-agricultural land and vesting did not take place, the second order is without jurisdiction and is a nullity in the eye of law as held by the Supreme Court. 119. On the other hand reliance was placed upon by the Respondents on the dictum of this Court in ILR 1990 Kar 880 in the case of Basavanthappa Dasharathappa Basthi vs. Land Tribunal on the following passage. A reading of the provisions clearly indicates the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal. If the person, who disputes the claim of the Appellant does not file any objection, there is no compulsion for the Tribunal to hold any enquiry at all. All that is required is the verification, which the Tribunal deems it necessary for the purpose of granting or rejecting the application. The elaborate enquiry to be conducted is only when objection is filed by any one disputing the validity of the applicant's claim. This dictum cannot come to the aid of the Respondents in as much as neither Raghavendra Rao nor Sridhar appeared. The claim that Sridhar appeared has been denied by him. 120. The elaborate enquiry to be conducted is only when objection is filed by any one disputing the validity of the applicant's claim. This dictum cannot come to the aid of the Respondents in as much as neither Raghavendra Rao nor Sridhar appeared. The claim that Sridhar appeared has been denied by him. 120. I would like to finally conclude the property belong to the Church should reach the right persons and search for the truth should end rightly in favour of the correct persons and not on those who want to manipulate things to their benefits without any recourse to law. 121. In any view of the matter, I hold that the impugned order in the above four writ petitions is to be quashed and accordingly quashed and the petitions are allowed. 122. I also direct the Government to look into the matter, cause enquiry to cull out the truth and take proper action against the persons who have indulged in such kind of illegal exercises, if it were to be so found on such enquiry. 123. The applications for impleading are dismissed as unnecessary. 124. In the result, Writ Petition No. 2817 of 1991 is dismissed and Writ Petition Nos. 17833 of 1993, 20220 of 1993, 23087 of 1993 and 26403 of 1993 are allowed and the impugned order in favour of Doddaiah is quashed and the other impugned order dismissing the claim of Krishnamurthy is confirmed.