Annasaheb Venkatarao Desai vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Ravi Malimath, J.—The petitioner claims to be the landlord of land bearing Sy. No. 160, situated at Bendawad village of Raibag Taluka, measuring 11 acres 25 guntas. The 3rd respondent claiming to be the tenant of the land in question, filed an application in From No. 7 seeking grant of occupancy rights. The Tribunal by order dated 16.9.1981, rejected the plea of the tenant so far as this land is concerned. It directed the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings against the landlord under the provisions of Section 58 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'', for short). The tenant did not challenge this order declining his request for grant of occupancy rights. The landlord however questioned the same in W.P. No. 26000/1981. By the order dated 2.7.1984, the petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after notice to the State Government and holding an enquiry in terms of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules (KLR Rules, for short). Thereafter, the Land Tribunal unfortunately issued notices to the tenant. The Land Tribunal considered the plea of the tenant and granted occupancy rights for the land in question. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. What was remanded by the order of the learned single Judge in the writ petition, was to hold an enquiry in compliance of Rule 17 of the KLR Rules with regard to Section 58 of the Act. The entire proceedings therefore, was only between the landlord and the State Government. Rather than doing that, the Tribunal entertained the petition and considered the plea of the tenants with regard to grant of occupancy rights.

Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order. On hearing learned counsels, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the petition. The matter was not one of a tenancy. The issue of tenancy was since concluded by the earlier order of the Land Tribunal dated 16.9.1981, which the tenant has not questioned. It is the landlord who had questioned the proceedings so far as the proceedings initiated in terms of Section 58 of the Act are concerned. Therefore the Tribunal was required to hear the landlord and the State alone, with regard to the same. It however exceeded its jurisdiction in not only issuing notices to the tenant, but by considering his plea and granting occupancy rights. It is opposed to the order passed in the writ petition. Hence, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is non-est. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Land Tribunal is beyond authority of law. Consequently it requires to be set aside.

It is however contended by the tenant that the members of the Land Tribunal had colluded with the landlord. Hence he had approached the Hon''ble High Court on this issue. Hence he did not challenge the order of the Land Tribunal dated 16.9.1981. Be that as it may, he has not questioned the Tribunal order rejecting his Form No. 7. The proceedings initiated by him so far as issues other than tenancy are concerned, would not have a bearing so far as the disposal of this petition is concerned, since the tenant as on date has accepted the order of the Land Tribunal dated 16.9.1981. His Form No. 7 as on date has been rejected.

As a consequence, the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 26000/1981 has therefore not been complied with. The proceedings would therefore have to be conducted by the Tribunal in terms of the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition. It is therefore necessary to reiterate, that the proceedings to be conducted by the Land Tribunal is only viz-a-viz the petitioner and the State Government. ''Consequently the Tribunal is directed to comply with the order dated 2.7.1984 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 26000/1981. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The order dated 21.8.2003, passed by the 2nd respondent/Land Tribunal in No. TNC/SR/709+2432/Girinayakwadi+TNC/DEV/SR/3/Bendwad, is quashed. The Land Tribunal is directed to comply with the order dated 2.7.1984, passed by this Court in W.P. 26000/1981. Ordered accordingly.