The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the K. L. R. (Amended Act) 1986 and the assessment of factual evidence regarding surrender of land, possession, and grant of occupancy rights.

( 1 ) THIS is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india with a prayer to writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated 28. 3. 89 passed by the Land tribunal, Belgaum, in Kangrali B. K. /s. R. 16 whereby the Tribunal confirming the occupancy rights in the joint names of respondents 3 to 5 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 100 and 64/2 measuring 1 A. 33 G. and 11 A. 36g. respectively. The assailing the same he has come up with this Writ Petition.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners 1 (a) to 1 (d) are that they are the wife and children of late vishwanath. Initially, the petitioners being the L. Rs. of deceased Vishwanath filed an appeal before the District Appellate Authority, Land Reforms, Belgaum, in R. AX. R. No. 16/1990 under section 118 (1) (a) of the K. L. R. (Amended Act) 1986 mainly on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law and violation of principles of natural justice and equity in appreciating the evidence on record and without holding proper enquiry and without giving reasonable opportunity being heard passed the impugned order confirming occupancy rights in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 is illegal, erroneous when the claim made by them in form No. 7 is only to the extent of 4 A. 18 G. and the Tribunal lost sight of the material documentary evidence, both oral and documentary and the Tribunal has given much importance by relying upon the entries in the Record of Rights as shown against cultivator's column in respect of the land in question and the same have not been proved by the respondents 3 to 5 by reason of better evidence. The entire land where the grass is grown naturally, therefore, the land in question does not come within the ambit of the provisions of K. L. R. Act. The court ought too have been treated and decided as a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction. But, in spite of bringing it to the notice that, the land in question is a naturally grass growing land the provisions of K. L. R. Act is not applicable, even then the tribunal failed to decide the matter in accordance with law. So also the court below erred in relying on the decision reported in ILR 1980 karnataka page 156, even though the facts of this case are quite contrary to the facts of the case relied upon by the trial court. The manner in which the tribunal held the spot inspection is totally unknown to law. No prior notice was issued to the parties before making such spot inspection and the parties are not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose evidence the tribunal relied upon to arrive at a conclusion. Hence this Writ Petition.

( 3 ) WHEN the appeal RALR 16/1990 pending before the District Appellate Authority, Land reforms, Belgaum, an amendment was brought to Land reforms Act abolishing Land Reforms appellate Authority. Therefore, the petitioners being the LRs of late Vishwanath filed civil petition under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms rules and a C. P. 5560/91. Accordingly, this Court allowed the C. P. and converted the said appeal into this Writ Petition.

( 4 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned Counsels of the LRs. of the petitioners 1 (a) to 1 (d), learned High Court Government Pleader, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 so also the learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 5.

( 5 ) DURING the course of arguments Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted on 6. 3. 1969 the father of the respondents 3 to 5 tiled an application under Section 25 r/w R9 of the Mysore land Reforms Act seeking permission to surrender the land measuring 11 a. 36 G. in RS No. 64/2 (eastern portion) in favour of the deceased petitioner, which came to be allowed on 31. 3. 1969. It is further argued that on the very same day late Vishwanath took possession of the said land from the father of respondents 3 to 5. But, subsequently it was challenged the said order dated 31. 3. 69 in ALR155/69 by the respondent