Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1455 (KAR)

Siddaiah v. State of Karnataka

2022-11-10

KRISHNA S.DIXIT

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the impugned order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy u/s.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 needs to be voided since it does not bear the signature of all the members of the Tribunal. This factual aspect is not denied either by learned HCGP appearing for the Tribunal or the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in VIJAYA BANK vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ILR 2008 KAR 1481 having interpreted Rule 17(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 has held that it is incumbent upon all the members of the Tribunal to subscribe their hands to the order and unless this is done the order is a nullity. Paragraph 4 of the judgment reads as under: "4. After carefully going through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in review and the provisions of Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules 1974, we are of the opinion that the failure of the members to sign the order is not merely a technical lapse but it goes to the very root of the matter. The judicial discipline requires that in a multi member judicial/quasi judicial adjudicatory body, all the adjudicators who have heard the matter should pronounce their written opinion at the same time and place and all of them should sign the order. The said salutory object of law is effectively manifested in Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. It is evident that five members have heard the matter. Only three members have signed the order and two of them have not signed the order. The Chairman and one of the members who have signed the order have expressed note of dissent for grant of occupancy rights in favour of 4th respondent. Only one of the members who have signed the order has opined that occupancy rights to be granted in favour of 4 respondent. The Chairman and one of the members who have signed the order have expressed note of dissent for grant of occupancy rights in favour of 4th respondent. Only one of the members who have signed the order has opined that occupancy rights to be granted in favour of 4 respondent. On totality of the consideration of facts and the material, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal which is not signed by the all the members who have heard the matter is a nullity and the said order cannot be considered as a valid juridical adjudication." In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is voided; matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for consideration afresh in accordance with law and within an outer limit of six months. It is open to the Tribunal to consider whether the signatory evidence sought to be adduced by the petitioner can be admitted to evidence or not. All contentions in this regard are kept open. Costs made easy.