ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)

This Intra Court Appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s Judgment dated 21.12.2023 whereby appellant’s W.P. No.6169/2008 has been negatived. In the said petition, he had called in question the Assistant Commissioner’s Order dated 24.02.2006 under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 rejecting his claim for grant of land in terms of his application in Form VII-A filed under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. He had also laid a challenge to the Land Tribunal’s Order dated 24.02.2006 as well.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submits that the occupancy right was granted by the Tribunal to the contesting respondents vide order dated 27.03.1981; his challenge in W.P. No.36191/2000 was negatived vide Judgment dated 20.02.2021 for want of locus standii; liberty having been reserved in the said judgment, that itself constitutes a fresh cause of auction and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner could not have rejected his Form 7A; parameters of Section 77A of the 1961 Act are complied with; even to this day appellant has been cultivating the subject land as a tenant although he could not claim occupancy by filing Form 7 under Section 48A of the Act. There is apparently fraud played by the contesting respondents handing glove with the landlord; fraud vitiates everything. All these aspects having not been properly adverted to, the impugned judgment is liable to be voided. 3. Learned GA appearing for the official respondents and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent resists the appeal submitting that the challenge to the Land Tribunal’s order granting occupancy way back in the year 1981 having failed, the land would remain with the tenants; therefore, no land avails for granting in favour of the appellant. They also notify to the Court that provisions of Section 77A were brought on to the statute book with effect from 01.11.1998; the Land Tribunal Order of 1981 operates as res judicata, even if it is on the ground of lack of locus standii.

So contending, they seek dismissal of the appeal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the respondents. Section 48A was introduced to the 1961 Act w.e.f. 01.03.1974; it provides for grant of occupancy to a tenant in cultivation of agricultural land as on 01.03.1974. The fact that the Tribunal has granted occupancy to the contesting respondents way back in the year 1981 is not in dispute. Appellant himself had laid a challenge to the order of the land Tribunal in W.P. No.36191/2000 that came to be rejected on 20.02.2001. There being no further challenge, the said order attained finality and therefore the occupancy granted to the contesting respondents remains intact. If that be so, there is no land availing for the grant in favour of any one much less the appellant under Section 77A of 1961 Act.

5. The second submission of the appellant that the dismissal of challenge to the 1981 order of the Land Tribunal was not on merits and further in the said W.P. liberty has been reserved to him to workout the remedy, is difficult to countenance. Challenge may be rejected for one or the other reason. Liberty to lay a fresh challenge elsewhere cannot be construed inasmuch as even there too the question of locus would figure. The related contention that the Tribunal’s Order of 1981 is itself void because of apparent fraud played by the tenants in collusion with the landlord, is bit difficult to countenance. “Fraud vitiates everything” said Lord Edward Coke, centuries ago is true. That is echoed by the Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath1. Appropriate proceedings need to be taken up for setting the said order on the ground of fraud, especially when that was affirmed by the Writ Court. Fraud cannot chanted as man