The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the tribunal to consider evidence from both parties and the procedure for addressing subsequent applications for occupancy rights.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the Order passed by the land tribunal, belgaum, produced at annexure-a, confirming the occupancy rights on respondents 3 to 8 by allowing their form 1 filed by them under Section 5 of the Karnataka certain inams abolition act.

( 2 ) I have heard the counsel for the petitioners, government pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the counsel for respondents 3 to 8.

( 3 ) THE petitioners filed form 7 and their form 7 came to be allowed by the tribunal by its order dated 3-7-1979. The land belonged to chandramouleshwara temple. Respondents 3 to 8 claimed to be the wahivatdars of that temple. The temple represented by respondents 3 to 8 filed writ petition No. 14033 of 1990 challenging the Order of the land tribunal granting occupancy rights in these lands to the petitioners. This court, by its Order produced at annexure-f, dismissed that writ petition confirming the Order of the land tribunal granting occupancy rights to the petitioners. Respondent 3 filed writ petition No. 5495 of 1992 for a direction to the land tribunal to consider form 1 filed by the said respondents. That writ petition came to be allowed and a direction came to be issued to the land tribunal to consider form 1 filed by the petitioner in that writ petition. When the matter was before the tribunal in pursuance of the directions given to the tribunal, the tribunal held enquiry wherein the petitioners and respondents 3 to 8 participated. The chairman held that the previous Order passed by the tribunal granting occupancy rights was final and conclusive and it cannot be reopened. But, the other members did not agree with the view of the chairman and they decided to grant form 1 filed by respondents 3 to 8 and in pursuance of the majority decision, the impugned Order came to be passed.

( 4 ) THE perusal of the impugned Order discloses that the tribunal has not applied its mind to the evidence that has been led by both sides in support of their contentions. On this point itself, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the petitioners and respondents 3 to 8, who did not agree with each other on many points, do agree on this point that the Order is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. Even the perusal of the Order goes to show that the tribunal has failed to take into consideration the evidence led by both sides. Therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) BUT, the contention between both sides is as to what should be consequential Order after setting aside the Order of the tribunal. The counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the previous Order passed by the land tribunal, confirming occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners, and confirmed by this court in writ petition No. 14033 of 1990, the tribunal cannot reopen its own decision as the previous Order of the tribunal will operate as res judicata barring respondents 3 to 8 from raising any contentions regarding the occupancy rights claimed by them under the Karnataka certain inams abolition act. The Order of the tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners was passed on 3-7-1979. The chandramouleshwara temple represented by the trustees filed writ petition No. 14033 of 1990 challenging this order. It is apparent that the Order was challenged after a lapse of nearly eleven years. In the previous Order passed by the land tribunal, there was no consideration regarding form 1 filed by respondents 3 to 8. The previous writ petition was filed by the temple as represented by its wahivatdars. But these respondents 3 to 8 have filed form 1 not as the representatives of the temple, but in their individual capacity as the pujaris and trustees. Moreover, the Order in that writ petition is that it was unnecessary to go into the merits of the case as the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on laches. In the case of Smt. Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal