The Petitioner, questioning the correctness of the order impugned dated 03.12.1981 in Proceedings No.RE/INA/621-1212/1981-82 passed by the 2nd respondent – Land Tribunal, Afzalpur, presented this writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is a registered trust situated at Aurad village, Athanur Hobli, Afzalpur Taluk, Gulbarga District. The above trust was formed to maintain and improve the Sri.Maruthi temple at Aurad village and other related social welfare activities. The said temple is an ancient temple in the village. The land measuring 11 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.4 (old No.8), 12 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.56 (old No.46) has been granted by the erstwhile Nizam of Hyderabad and the said property belonging to the temple. The same has been utilized for grazing of grass to the cattle of the village and utilized the same as and when any festival or jatra in the said village. When things stood thus, it is shock and surprising to the petitioner when he came to know that, the 1st respondent has filed Form No.1 on 29.6.1981, seeking occupancy rights of the land in question. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal, in turn, has registered occupancy rights in favour of the 1st respondent. This fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner-trust only in the year 2007 when respondents 1 has filed a suit for restraining the villagers from interfering with the peaceful possession of the land in question. Immediately, without any delay, they have engaged the services of a counsel at Bangalore and filed writ petition questioning the order impugned passed by the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. After careful perusal of the material available on record, specifically, after going through Form No.1 filed by the 1st respondent on 29.6.1981, it is astonishing to note that, the name and address stated is Malka, S/o. Bhimarao, (expired), Bhimarao, S/o. Mulka, aged 45 years and in the column of name of the landlord and addressee it is shown as Bhimarao S/o. Mulki, Afzalpur Taluk, Aurad Village, claiming 24 acres 9 guntas and 31 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.4 and Sy.No.56, respectively and the said application Form No.1 filed by the 1st respondent had come up for consideration before the tribunal. The tribunal, in turn, without conducting enquiry, in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Acts and Rules, without issuing public notice, without issuing individual notices nor the 1st respondent impleaded the petitioner trust as the owner of the land in question, has proceeded to pass a non speaking order stating that, inspite of service of notice he was not present nor he sent any written submissions. But, whoever, they have verified the application and record of rights wherein his name has been shown as cultivator. Therefore, the application filed by the 1st respondent for registration of occupancy rights has been registered. The said order runs in manuscript written in four lines. It is significant to note herein itself that, the tribunal without application of mind, without impleading proper party to the proceedings, proceeded to conclude the proceedings. Further what emerges is that, the said order does not contain any reasons, discussions or findings but only registered the occupancy rights in the name of the 1st respondent. Therefore, I am of the considered view, at any stretch of imagination, such a non speaking order cannot be sustainable and is liable to be set aside and writ petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold for the reason that, Form No.1 filed on 29.6.1981 itself is misconceived and cannot be maintainable. It is crystal clear from the application that in the application filed by the 1st respondent for registration of occupancy rights and he himself shown as owner of