The omission of necessary parties in land occupancy rights proceedings renders the Tribunal's order unsustainable under the Act.

JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the landlords questioning the order of the Land Tribunal dated 27.11.1981, conferring occupancy rights in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. Learned Single Judge referring to the material on record, found that the land in question is ‘Devadaya Inam Land’. On examining the material on record, the learned Single Judge has found that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed an application under Section 6A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, (for short ‘the Act’) without impleading the Temple as a respondent. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the view that, the Land Tribunal has conferred the occupancy rights without impleading either holder or landlord of the land in question. The learned Single Judge therefore, held that, the order under challenge passed by the Land Tribunal conferring the occupancy rights does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of law. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

Perused the order under challenge.

4. On going through the order under challenge we would find that, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed an application under Section 6A of the Act seeking grant of occupancy rights. Admittedly, the appellants herein are claiming to be the Archaks and tenants of endowed land. If the holder of the Office who is necessary party was not impleaded in the proceedings, the grant of endowed land without impleading the Temple as the respondent is not sustainable and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order. The order of the learned Single Judge remanding the matter for fresh enquiry after notifying the necessary party, is in accordance with law.

5. We are unable to understand as to how the appellants can have as the order conferring occupancy rights is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore not sustainable. If learned Single Judge found that entire proceedings before the Land Tribunal stands vitiated on account of grant of occupancy rights by violating the mandatory procedure contemplated under the Act, the order under challenge is in accordance with law. We do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.