( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be an Archak of Anjaneyaswamy Temple. He had filed an application for grant of occupancy rights of lands measuring 31 guntas in Survey No. 643 situated at Yeragamballi Village, Yelandur taluk, Mysore District. Likewise, respondents 3 and 4 had made applications for grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 20 guntas and 14 guntas respectively in the same Survey Number. The land in question was admittedly endowed to Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, yeragamballi.

( 2 ) THE Land Tribunal by an order dated 20-1-1981 had granted occupancy rights in respect of the said Survey Numbers in favour of respondents 3 and 4, Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 2126 of 1983 and this Court by the Order dated 12-11-1984 quashed the said order on the ground that it was not a speaking order and directed the Land Tribunal to make a fresh enquiry in accordance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974.

( 3 ) THE Land Tribunal by a subsequent Order dated 8-12-1988 (Annexure-K) granted occupancy rights to an extent of 31 Guntas in the said Survey Number in favour of the petitioner. Again, the Land tribunal by an Order dated 19-11-1992 (Annexure-J) granted occupancy rights to an extent of 18 guntas and 13 guntas respectively in the same survey Number in favour of respondents 3 and 4 respectively. The petitioner has called in question the said Order of the Land Tribunal dated 19-11-1992 (Annexure-J) in this petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Order at annexure-K granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner on 8-12-1988 has become final since it was not challenged by the contesting respondents. Therefore, the Land Tribunal erred in granting occupancy rights of the same land in favour of respondents 3 and 4 as per annexure-J while reviewing its Order dated 8-12-1988 (Annexure-K ). He submits that the respondents 3 and 4 are not tenants and were not in possession of the lands during the relevant point of time. It is further argued that the respondents 3 and 4 have claimed occupancy right in respect of Sy. No. 663 of the same village. The Land Tribunal is not justified in granting occupancy right in respect of Sy. No. 643 in their favour.

( 5 ) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader submits that since the occupancy rights of the same lands are granted in favour of the petitioner as also respondents 3 and 4, both the orders are required to be quashed and the Land Tribunal should be directed to reconsider the matter by clubbing the applications of the petitioner and the contesting respondents.

( 6 ) AS noticed above, the petitioner had challenged the order of the land Tribunal dated 20-1-1981 granting occupancy rights in respect of the said land in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in W. P. No. 2126 of 1983 and this Court on 12-11-1984 quashed the said order with a direction to hold an enquiry and pass a reasoned order. When the petitioner and the contesting respondents were rival claimants, it was incumbent upon the land Tribunal to club all the applications in terms of sub-rule (6) of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 and pass a common order. However, when the applications of the respondents 3 and 4 was taken up for consideration after remand, the Land Tribunal had already granted occupancy rights in respect of the same land in favour of the petitioner. The Land Tribunal grants occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in terms of the impugned order while reviewing its previous Order dated 8-12-1988. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the approach of the Tribunal is just and proper.

( 7 ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Shetty and others v Land Tribunal, Somwarpet and Others, ILK 197!) Kar. 1681 (DB) has held that once an application is duly made for registration of occupancy within the extended time for making such applications, the Land Tribunal cannot r