The Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction in granting occupancy rights without notifying interested parties, violating principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

RAJESH RAI, J.

1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the A order dated 01.03.1994 passed by the Land Tribunal-respondent No.2 vide Annexure-, whereby the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Chandrayya Naika - respondent No.3.

2. The grievance of the petitioners' is that the land measuring 25 cents in Sy.No.159 situated at Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk (for brevity "the subject land"), originally belongs to Sode Vadiraja Mutt (for brevity "the Mutt"). In the year 1963, after obtaining permission from the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mysore, the Mutt formed a layout. Thereafter, the Mutt leased the subject land (marked as Plot No.46 in the layout plan) to one Rama Rao vide registered Lease Deed dated 09.05.1966 and said Rama Rao sold his lease hold rights in respect of the subject land to one Jagannath Shetty under a registered Deed dated 21.08.1974. Thereafter, said Jagannath Shetty in turn sold the lease hold right to Victoria D'Silva Bai on 06.11.1974 and the Victoria D'Silva Bai sold the same to Purushottam P Shetty on 16.08.2012. Thereafter, the petitioners purchased mooli right and leasehold right (Moolageni right) of the subject land from the Mutt and Purushottam P Shetty vide registered Deed dated 27.08.2012 and ever since, they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. After that the revenue entries were mutated in the name of the petitioners and the Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 01.04.1974 to 27.08.2012 reflects the above transactions and Municipal Khata also stands in the name of the petitioners.

3. It is further case of the petitioners that respondent No.3, who is a resident of Kelarkalabettu Village, Udupi Taluk which is 10 kms away from the subject land had filed Form No.7 claiming 9 items of land in Kelarkalabettu Village seeking occupancy right and the Land Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.1978 granted the said lands which were only subject matter of claim before the Tribunal. Subsequently, in the year 1994, respondent No.3 had fraudulently inserted the survey number of subject land in the old Form No.7 which was already disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 10.08.1978. The Tribunal thereafter without notice either to the petitioners or the Mutt had passed the impugned order by granting occupancy right to respondent No.3 in respect of the subject land. On 16.10.2014, fresh Form No.10 was issued which itself reflected the subject land as a house site. Thereafter, the children of respondent No.3 started to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land and on enquiry, the petitioners learnt about the impugned order and enquired with the Mutt that whether the subject land-house property was given on agricultural lease at any point of time and the Mutt issued the letter dated 18.03.2015 stating that the subject land is a house site.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of conversion order obtained by respondent No.3 after passing of the impugned order in his favour and the Deputy Commissioner has noted that respondent No.3 has forged Form No.7 and referred the matter to the Tahsildar and thereafter, the Revenue Inspector has prima facie observed that respondent No.3 has obtained occupancy right fraudulently. Hence, this Writ Petition.

5. Heard Sri Vinayaka B. and Sri Varun R., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kiran Kumar learned AGA for respondent No.1 and 2 and Sri. K. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for respondent No.3(a).

6. It is the primary contention of the learned co