The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the equitable doctrine of 'delay defects equity' and the importance of vigilance in seeking legal remedies.

This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 23-6-1981 passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Land Tribunal granting occupancy right in favour of respondent 3 in respect of the land in Sy. Nos. 116/2 measuring 23 cents, 116/1B-1C measuring 10 cents and 100/2 measuring 28 cents of Kemminje Village of Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada on the ground that the impugned order is not a considered order and also not a speaking order. Even though deceased respondent 3 has filed Form 7 but not included the aforesaid three items of the land, the Tribunal conferred occupancy right in his favour even though respondent 3 never stated before the Tribunal that he is also in possession and enjoyment of the said land as a lawful tenant in respect of 3 items of the land immediately prior to 1-3-1974. But the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons in the impugned order under challenge at Annexure-A and failed to apply its judicious mind while confirming the occupancy right. Therefore, the impugned order under challenge is liable to be quashed since it is illegal, incorrect and unsustainable. But the delay in filing this writ petition has been explained properly and there is violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the L.Rs of deceased respondent 3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

3. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the deceased respondent 3 who is stated to be the tenant filed Form 7 in respect of the other items of the land but not these three items to confirm occupancy right. But the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to confer occupancy right other than the items of the land claimed by such applicant in Form 7. Therefore, the impugned order under challenge is not a speaking order and it is clear violation of mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Further, it is contended that merely because at the time of survey it was revealed that the deceased respondent 3 was also cultivating the aforesaid three items, therefore, on the basis of the spot inspection and on the basis of the survey report, occupancy right granted by the Tribunal without any claim made by respondent 3 is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Further, it is contended that no claim has been made by respondent 3 for grant of occupancy right in respect of these three items of the land and it is not a speaking order and therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to rehear the arguments and dispose of the case in accordance with law.

4. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in:

(i) In case of Pakeera Moolya v K.R. Mari Bhat and Others\ wherein, it has been held by Division Bench of this Court that:

"Amendment of Form 7 - Claim in respect of each land separate claim impermissible to amend to include new item of land after expiry of period of limitation - Amendment possible, if land in respect of which claim made, description discrepant Cons en t of party cannot confer jurisdiction".

He also relied upon another unreported decision in W.P. No. 25672 of 1996 in the case of A. Susheela v The 1st Land Tribunal, Puttur and Others. Wherein, it has been held that:

"if the non-mentioning of the particular survey number in Form 7 filed by the applicant, even then if the Land Tribunal confirm the occupancy right, such order of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous as far as that survey number is concerned".

He has also relied upon other decision in Kiran Singh and Others v Chaman Paswan and Others2, wherein it has been held that:

"It is a fundamental principle 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 enfo