Procedural impropriety in granting occupancy rights without a formal inquiry violates legal standards.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioners seeks the following reliefs:

the Karnataka Land Reforms Act , (in short 'KLR' Act), seeking grant of occupancy rights. The petitioners herein were arrayed as the respondents/opposite parties to the said proceedings under Section 77A of the KLR Act and they contested the proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that without conducting a formal enquiry as mandatorily required under Rule 26-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 19.07.2006 conferring/granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.3 to 6 in relation to the subject lands. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner's predecessor in interest filed an appeal in Appeal No.1023/2006 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which proceeded to dismiss the appeal, thereby confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and KAT, Bangalore, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which reads as under:

5. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Assistant Commissioner will indicate that the same is a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without application of mind and without conducting necessary enquiry as required in law and by straight away accepting the claim of the applicants without referring to any documents or material produced by them or considering the same as required in law. So also, the appellate tribunal has summarily dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners by passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, having regard to the impugned orders which suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and in the absence of a speaking order for the purpose of upholding the claim of the applicants and rejecting the defence of the petitioners and without conducting necessary enquiry, without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 6 submit that the impugned order passed by the KAT is of the year 2018 and the present petition filed in the year 2022-2023 is barred by latches and delay and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

7. By way of reply learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were unaware of the orders passed by the KAT, Bangalore and came to know about the same only when the revenue records were changed into the names of the respondents No.3 to 6 and as such immediately becoming aware about the same, the petitioners approached this court by way of the present petition.

8. A perusal of the facts and grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition will indicate that, at para 14 of the petition, the petitioners have averred as under.

"14. The Petitioners submit that it is their father was looking after the litigation matters and was a party before the KAT in the appeal and during the pendency of the said appeal, he died on 19.03.2018 leaving behind the Petitioners as successors to his estate. The Petitioner No.1 been his wife is an illiterate woman and other children are engaged i