Channagowda vs Muradanagowda Kotegowdra and Others

Huluvadi G Ramesh

The father of respondents 1 to 7 herein filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 8 acres 24 guntas of land in Sy.No. 70/2 situated at Irani Village, Ranebennur Taluk. At the first instance the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in his favour. The same was challenged in W.P.No 2428/79 and this Court quashed the order passed by the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. After remand, the Land Tribunal rejected the tenancy application and the said order was challenged in W.P.No. 29751/2001. By order dated 20-6-2007 the writ petition was allowed, the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting Form. 7 was quashed and consequently Form-7 application was allowed directing to confer occupancy rights in favour of the applicant. The petitioners herein, who are the purchasers of the land in question from 10th respondent Mutt under a registered sale deed dated 2-5-1986, have filed this writ petition seeking to review the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though the petitioners purchased the land in question way back in the year 1986 itself, they have not been arrayed as party to the proceedings before the Land tribunal. That apart, occupancy rights have been granted in favour of a dead person and therefore the order is non-est in the eye of law.

Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7 submitted that the petitioners being third parties, they cannot maintain this writ petition. He further submitted that since occupancy rights has been granted by this Court in W.P.No. 29751/2001, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in Shivdeo Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and contended that by entertaining second writ petition, this Court has got jurisdiction to review its previous order at the instance of a person who is net a party to the previous writ proceedings.

In the instant case, the order passed by this Court conferring occupancy rights is in favour of a dead person. It is non-est in the eye of law. Even before such an order was passed, the petitioners became the owners of the land in question. Therefore, they should have been afforded an opportunity of being heard. In the circumstances, the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition has to be recalled and the matter has to be remanded to the Land Tribunal. The writ petition is allowed and the order at Annexure-K passed by this Court on 20-6-2007 in W.P.No. 29751/2001 is recalled, The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal of LRF(A)/SR/32 & 63/75-76 after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and respondents 1 to 7 herein, in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open.