Back
1977 Supreme(Kar) 256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
M.S. Nesargi, J.
Fakruddin Sheriff —Appellant
Vs.
The Land Tribunal and others —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7227 of 1975
Decided on : 11-11-1977
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Shetty, C. Shanthamallappa, for the Appellant
Mr. U. Narayanaswami, for the Respondent
Non-speaking orders, improper clubbing of cases, and ignoring mandatory procedures under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act justify the quashing of orders and the direction for a fresh enquiry.
Headnote:
Land Tribunal - Quashing of Order granting Occupancy Rights
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owner of several lands, challenged the order granting occupancy rights to Respondents 2 to 32 by the Land Tribunal. The order was found to be non-speaking and the Tribunal was found to have erred in clubbing all the cases and ignoring mandatory procedures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order was non-speaking, the Tribunal erred in clubbing all the cases, and ignored mandatory procedures, justifying the quashing of the order and directing a fresh enquiry.
Issues: Validity of the order granting occupancy rights, compliance with procedural requirements, and the Tribunal's approach to clubbing multiple cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-speaking orders, improper clubbing of cases, and ignoring mandatory procedures under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act justified the quashing of the order and the direction for a fresh enquiry.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the Tribunal was directed to hold a fresh enquiry in all the 31 applications.
1. The petitioner, who is the owner of many lands, in regards to portions of which Respondents 2 to 32 have succeeded before the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura, in securing occupancy rights in favour of themselves, has challenged the order so granting occupancy rights. That order is dated 6-11-1975 and has been passed by the Land Tribunal in 31 proceedings.
2. The true copy of the order is at Exhibit 'B' : to read the order at Exhibit 'B', leads to a strange experience. The name of the applicant and the land for which he has applied is mentioned in the first column and as against that, it is narrated that his case was considered and his claim was granted. In view of this state of affairs, the learned counsel appearing on both the sides fairly filed a Joint Memo stating that the order in question is not a speaking order and the law requires that it should be quashed.
3. Apart from the aforementioned fact which makes the order liable to be quashed, it is to be observed that the Tribunal was Wrong in clubbing all the 31 cases. In various decisions it is laid down by this Court that if more than one person claim occupancy rights to the very same area and very same land, such claims should be clubbed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal should proceed to dispose of the claims by passing a common order. It is not the law that if the landlord is common in many applications, though the lands are different and the claimants are different, all those applications should be clubbed and common order should be passed. This is another lacuna in the proceedings of the Tribunal.
4. One more lacuna worthwhile noticing is that the Tribunal has ignored the mandatory procedure prescribed by Section 48-A(5) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in disposing of the case's.
5. In view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that the learned counsel are justified in filing the Joint Memo.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to hold a fresh enquiry in all the 31 applications bearing in mind the observations made in the body of the order and then proceed to dispose of the claims of the different claimants according to law.
7. No order as to costs.
8. Writ petition allowed.
