The finality of quasi-judicial orders, lack of jurisdiction for regularisation applications, and the importance of locus standi in challenging orders.

M.F. Saldanha, J.—This group of writ petitions have been filed by a set of persons claiming that they are in unauthorised occupation of small pieces of agricultural land in the Survey No. 3 which is the subject matter of the current controversy. They have assailed an order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal on 23.9.1982. The petitions have been filed in the year 1997 which is approximately fifteen years after the Tribunal's order was passed. The grounds of challenge are common and hence, I propose to dispose of these petitions through a common order.

2. Briefly stated, the Petitioners have contended that they have been in unauthorised occupation of the plots of land that have been referred to by them and that they are cultivating these lands. The plea of unauthorised occupation has been put forward because the Petitioners have not and in fact are unable to produce any supportive documents either in respect of the possession or in support of their plea that they are cultivating the lands barring two documents which I propose to refer to. Normally, persons who claim rights in respect of agricultural lands and who claim that they have been in occupation and cultivation for decades together which happens to be the case here, would have some records and some documents to rely on but in this case, what the Petitioners are relying on are two documents, the first is a report of the Revenue Inspector dated 12.9.1994 and the second one is an inspection report of a Committee which is dated 24.9.1994. Both these reports state that the Petitioners are in occupation and cultivation of the plots in question. The Petitioners contend that these proceedings arose by virtue of applications filed by them under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 whereunder there are certain provisions enabling persons who are in unauthorised occupation to apply to the revenue authority for regularisation. According to the Petitioners, since they have been in occupation and cultivation for several years, they have applied for the regularisation and that the Revenue Inspector surveyed the lands and submitted his report on 12.9.1994 and this was followed by another inspection carried out by the Committee called the Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation Committee which has not only indicated that the Petitioners are in cultivation of the lands but has also passed a very strange order which is almost unprecedented. It is a four line order whereby the Committee states that there has been no objection from any party that the occupation be regularised and then follows, in quick succession the notice dated 30.9.1994 whereby the Tahsildar calls upon the so-called applicants to pay land revenue on a tentative basis. Normally, I would not have commented a single word about these three documents because they are not really the subject matter of the controversy before this Court namely the question as to whether the order passed by the Tribunal on 23.9.1982 is required to be interfered with but it has become necessary because the Petitioners rely on these documents in support of their case and therefore the Court has to base its finding or otherwise on these documents. It is characteristic in government and revenue circles for officers and authorities to continue their bureaucratic procedures indefinitely and to drive applicants to frustration even in the simplest of situations. On the present occasion, the Revenue Department requires to be congratulated by this Court for the speed and "indecent haste" with which the entire procedure was completed in 18 days. What is of consequence is the fact that the lands in respect of which these orders have been passed are the subject matter of the Tribunal's order dated 23.9.1982 and occupancy rights was granted in respect of these lands in favour of Respondent No. 5 who in turn sold them to No. 6 who in turn sold them to No. 7. The same revenue authorities in total defiance of the Tribunal's order which has beco