The Court emphasized the duty of the Tribunal to consider all rival applications for occupancy rights and the extension of the time limit for filing applications under S. 48-A by the Amendment Act.

Headnote:
Land Reforms Act - Interconnected Writ Petitions - S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - S. I of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978 - The duty of the Tribunal to consider rival applications for occupancy rights - Setting aside earlier orders to consider all applications filed in time
Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the withdrawal of a writ petition and the orders of the Tribunal granting occupancy rights to respondents. The appellant claimed to be the owner of the lands and sought to maintain the appeal despite not being a party in his own right.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the appellant had a share in the lands and that the withdrawal of the writ petition by another party was likely to affect his claim. The Court also emphasized the duty of the Tribunal to consider all rival applications for occupancy rights and set aside earlier orders to do so.
Issues: Locus standi of the appellant to file the appeal, Duty of the Tribunal to consider rival applications, Time limit for filing applications under S. 48-A
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's interest in the lands affected by the withdrawal of the writ petition allowed him to maintain the appeal. The Tribunal has a duty to consider all applications for occupancy rights and may set aside earlier orders to do so. The time limit for filing applications under S. 48-A was extended by the Amendment Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of the Tribunal, and directed the Tribunal to consolidate all applications, hear them together, and decide by a common order. Each party was to bear their own costs.

D. M. CHANDRASHEKHAR, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE lour petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution have been referred to a Division Bench by Bhimiah, before 'whom they had, come up in the first instance. The reason for so referring them is that they are inter-connected with Writ, Appeal No. 591 of 1978. We have heard arguments of learned Counsel "in the appeal and in these petitions and we are deciding them by this common judgment.

( 2 ) WRIT Appeal No. 591 of 1978 is from the order of Venkatesh, permitting Writ Petition No. 7584 of 1977 being withdrawn by the petitioner therein. This appeal is by Basapa Gurusangappa bargundi, who was the power of attorney holder for Channappa Shanmukhappat Barundi the petitioner in Writ petition No,7584/1977.

( 3 ) THE case of the appellant is briefly thus: Channappa, Shanmukhappa Bargundi had made an application under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Land Tribunal, Badami taluk for being registered as occupant of certain lands. channappa had made that application as the 'kartha' of the Hindu undivided family of which the appellant was also a member. Hence, that application must be regarded as being on-behalf of the appellant also. Subsequently Channappa withdrew the writ petition. such withdrawal was contrary to the interest of the appellant , therefore, the appellant has presented this apple thought he was not a party in his own right to Wright petition no. 7584 of 1977,but was only a power of attorney holder for petitioner therein.

( 4 ) WRIT Petitions Nos. 5715 to 5717 of 1978 have all been presented by Padappa Shivanappa, desai. Therein, he has challenged the three separate orders of the Tribunal, granting occupancy rights to respondents 4, 5 and 6 therein. He has claimed to be the owner of all the lands Act of which the Tribunal had occupancy rights to respondents 4 to 6. His contention was that those respondents were not tenants of those lands and that the Tribunal was not justified in granting occupancy rights to them.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondents 9, 10 and 12 in the appeal, raised a preliminary objection as to the locus stand of appellant to file the appeal. They contended that as he was not a party in his own right in Writ Petition No. 7584 of 1977 and the petitioner therein, Channappa shanmukhappa Baragundi, had withdrawn that writ petition he (the appellant) had no right , to maintain this appeal from the order in that writ petition.

( 6 ) THE question whether a person who, is not a party to an original proceeding can Me an appeal there from was considered by this Court in Shivaraya v. Siddawa (AIR 1963 Mys 127 ). The law on the point was stated thus by Somnathiyer, J. (as he then was):

"leave to a person to appeal from a decree or order in a proceeding to which he was not a party should not be ordinarily granted unless he establishes that he has an interest which is affected by the order or decree from which he proposes' to appeal. If he establishes that he has such interest, it seems to me that it is not necessary for him to further establish that if he does not institute an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court, the consequence will be that the order or decree against which he proposal to appeal becomes conclusive without his being able to question such decree or order in other proceedings. In my opinion, the question as to whether leave should or should not be granted should depend upon the facts of each case and it is for the appellate Court to decide whether the case before it is a fit one for the grant of such leave. "

( 7 ) NO doubt the appellant had not made a separate application seeking leave f the Court to prefer this appeal. But, the absence of such application is only a formal defect and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the appeal. Since the appellant has contended at he has a share in the lands in respect of which Channappa Shanmukhappa Bargundi has made an applicati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document