High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is limited to reviewing legality of quasi-judicial decisions without remanding for further hearings absent substantial errors.

ORDER :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.02.2017 in No.LRF.ATC.3583/1975-76, passed by the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition inter-alia sought for direction to grant occupancy rights in respect of subject land in favour of the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is resident of Hulimangala village, Anekal Taluk and the petitioner is cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.188/1 measuring 1 acres, 18 guntas, as a tenant under one Sri. Siddabasappa-land lord of the land in question referred to above. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk on 30.12.1976, and it is further stated that, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of petitioner as per order dated 31.10.1981 produced at Annexure-B. It is also contended that, the respondent No.4 herein has challenged the order dated 31.10.1981 before this court in W.P.No.31640 of 1981 and this court vide order dated 02.03.1983 dismissed the said writ petition as per Annexure-D to the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 has preferred LRA No.568 of 1986 before the Land Reforms Appellant Authority as the said Appellate Authority was abolished, and as such, said appeal was converted into petition in W.P.No.20781 of 1993 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 12.07.2000 (Annexure-E), wherein this court remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for re-consideration. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal recorded the statement of the parties, and passed order dated 30.11.2002 (Annexure-F), reconfirming the occupancy rights granted in the name of the petitioner. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the Thasildar has issued Form No.10 on 18.01.2003, seeking payment of premium in respect of subject land and also mutation entries were transferred into the name of the petitioner. The petitioner also produced the RTC extracts to substantiate the right in respect of subject land.

3. It is stated in the writ petition that, the original land lord-Siddabasappa died and his children along with the respondent No.4 herein have filed W.P.No.30834 of 2003 and the this court vide order dated 05.12.2011 as per Annexure-H, allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30834 of 2003 was challenged before the Division Bench in W.A.No.503 of 2012, and the writ appeal came to be dismissed as per order dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure-J). In that view of the matter, as the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration and the Land Tribunal has passed order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure-A), rejecting the claim made by the petitioner herein and being aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.

4. I have heard Sri. Bhadrinath R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.P.Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Dhananjay Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel, Sri.Srikanth S., for respondent Nos. 3 (b) and (c) and 4 (a to f).

5. Sri. Bhadrinath .R., learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the operative portion of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, on 28.02.2017, and has produced the order sheet of the Land Tribunal, wherein, it is stated that, the order was pronounced on 22.02.2017, and in that view of the matter, the Land Tribunal has committed an error having not noticed the case on merits and as such, sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended by the learned couns