The court upheld the validity of the Land Tribunal's order, emphasizing that procedural deficiencies claimed by the petitioners did not affect the merits of the case.

ORDER :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Land Tribunal in case No.LRY:1-446-TRI-4157/1976-77 vide Annexure-J.

2. The case of the petitioners is that, the lands in Sy.Nos.34/1, 34/8, 34/12, 34/19 and 161/1 of Phalimar village, Udupi Taluk were allotted to the share of late Smt.Rajeevi Heggadathi vide award dated 28.06.1996 in F.D.P. No.1/72 of O.S.No.142/54 filed by one late Rathnavathi Heggadthi (elder sister of Rajeevi Heggadathi). Later, on 20.12.1974, late Shivappa Shetty, Seetha Shedthy and Amba Shedthy i.e., respondent No.3 had filed a common application in Form-7 under Section 48A(1) of the KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT , 1961 (for short "KLR Act") claiming occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.34/8 measuring 48 cents, eastern portion of Sy.No.34/13 measuring 3 acres 63 cents, western portion of Sy.No.34/13 measuring 50 cents, Sy.No.34/1 measuring 2 acres 10 cents and Sy.No.161/1 measuring 3 acres of Phalimar Village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District (for brevity 'subject lands') along with the above mentioned survey numbers.

3. Further case of the petitioners is that the above named applicants had claimed occupancy right in respect of subject lands as well as other lands of Hejamadi Village which was allegedly tenanted from an individual named Vajra Kumar vide order dated 30.04.1977. That after lapse of several years, late Seetha Shedty i.e., one of the applicants made two representations i.e., on 13.05.1981 and 16.05.1983 before the Land Tribunal, urging that she and co-applicants were in joint possession of subject lands along with Smt.Rajeevi Heggadthi and she was also entitled to be granted occupancy right in respect of subject lands. The Land Tribunal, after hearing the matter for prolonged years, had passed an order dated 03.10.2016 by granting the subject lands only in favour of Amba Shedthy - respondent No.3 (as other two applicants namely Seetha Shedthy and Shivappa Shetty were no more). Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners are before this court.

4. Heard Sri H.Pavanchandra Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.2 to 4, Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned AGA for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Narayan Mayyar for S.R.Hegde Hudlamane learned counsel for respondent No.3. Petitioner No.1, respondent Nos.R4(a), (b), (c), respondent No.5(a) had remained unrepresented and service of notice to respondent No.5(b) was held sufficient.

5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the impugned order has been passed by the Land Tribunal against the dead individuals in the absence of their respective legal heirs. According to him, it is the fact that Smt.Rajeevi Heggadathi has left behind six children at the time of her demise and only two of them were brought on record. On perusal of the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, the respondents knowing fully that landlord – Rajeevi Heggadathi died leaving behind her six children, not made any application to bring them on record. He also contended that, respondent No.3 has failed to establish her tenancy on the subject land as on 01.03.1974 that she was in possession and cultivation of the subject land under Rajeevi Heggadathi i.e. the landlord. He also contended that, the Tribunal has passed a non-speaking order without conducting proper enquiry. According to him, the respondents have failed to place any relevant documents to prove that they are Moolageni tenants pursuant to moolageni registered on 25.11.1950. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(c) contended that, the subject lands are originally registered moolag