The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Land Tribunal must have jurisdiction to grant occupancy right, and the definition of 'land' under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is crucial in determining the applicability of the Act.

( 1 ) THE order passed by the 1st respondent Land Tribunal, Bantwal, a true opy of which is produced at Extibit- b dated 25-6-1976, granting occupancy right in favour of the 2nd respondent in each of the writ petitions is under challenge in these eleven common writ petitions filed by the petitioner C. V. Gowramrna.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, in the course of this order, I shall refer to the petitioner in all the writ petition as petitioner, the 1st respondent as land Tribunal and the 2nd respondent respondents.

( 3 ) THE matter involved in these writ petitions arises in this way: The petitioner Gowramma is the owner of the lands comprised in Sy. No. 177|2, 175|4, 175|6, 180|1, 180|2 and 180/3 of Golthmajalu village of bantwal taluk in 'dakshina Kannada district. These lands originally belonged to the family of her husband called Kelinja family of which her husband was the Yejaman. The lands involved in these writ petitions being punja lands and lying on the sides of two main roads and being fit only for house sites, the husband of the petitioner, during his life time, gave bits cf land on lease to various persons including the respondents for house sites. The portions of the survey number not let out continued to be in the actual possession of the petitioner's family. The petitioner got the lands in question to her share as per the compromise decree entered into between the members of the family in R. F. A. No, 17/1972 on the file of this Court and the petitioner got possession of them in Exe. Case No. 113/1973 and the delivery was recorded on 16-6-1973. The respondents continued to be the tenants under her in respect of the lands in question.

( 4 ) THE respondents applied to the land Tribunal in Form No. 7 under s. 48a (1) of the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1961 (shortly called the act') for being registered as occupants in respect of the lands mentioned in their respective claim applications. The land. Tribunal passed the order ext. B granting occupancy right in favour of the respondents in respect of the portions of the lands referred to therein. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order has challenged its validity in these common writ petitions.

( 5 ) ALL the respondents were duly served with notice of these writ petitions. However, they remained unrepresented.

( 6 ) THE main contention canvassed by sri P. Ganapathy Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his arguzents are two fold. They are: (1) The land involved in these writ petitions do not fall within the purview of the provisions of the act and as such the Land Tribunal has no competence and jurisdiction to deal with them in the matter of granting occupancy right. (2) The grant of occupancy right by the Land Tribunal in respect of 4 cents of land comprised in Sy No. 175/6 in favour of Ibrayi beary, the respondent in W. P. No. 6494/1976 and the grant in favour of the respondent Mohammed Beary in w. P. No- 6497/1976, B. Ahamed in w. P. No. 6498 /1976, Fakruddin in w. P. No. 6500/1976 and Hamida Beary in W. P. No. 6501/ 1976 is totally illegal and without jurisdiction, since there was no application filed by the respective respondents claiming occupancy right in respect of the land for which occupancy right was granted to them.

( 7 ) BESIDES these two main contentions Sri Ganapathy Bhat also attacked the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had no notice of the cases involved in w. P. No. 6497 to 6501 of 1976 and further that the grant of occupancy right in favour of K. Sundara Balyaya in W. P. No. 6499 of 1976 was without any enquiry on a belated application filed on 11-5-1976, a few days earlier to the passing of the impugned order.

( 8 ) I shall take up for consideration first, the second contention canvassed as the same could be disposed of without much discussion. To better appreciate the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner on this point, it will be relevant to refe