Shri Mulki Venkataramana Temple, Mulki, Mangalore and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

I have heard the petitioner''s learned Advocate as also the Government Advocate on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 on merits. At the outset, I pointed out to the petitioners'' learned Counsel that it is necessary to technically comply with the requirements of the rules insofar as the petitioners had originally preferred W.P. Nos. 13133 to 13137 of 1986 which were sent to the Appellate Authority and which have now come back. The petitioners are aggrieved by the tact that the Tribunal has wrongly included the forest lands viz., Sy. Nos. 60 and 87/1 of Kemral Village while granting the occupancy rights along with certain other agricultural lands. In respect of the five appeals the petitioners have filed one civil petition which is technically not correct. His submission is that this was because the Appellate Authority had given only one appeal number. Whatever be the position the dispute concerns five separate cases and therefore, five civil petitions ought to have been filed. I do not propose to penalise the petitioners by insisting on any additional paper work but, for record purposes the petitioners shall pay the deficit Court fee on the remaining four civil petitions in the office within two weeks from today and the office shall renumber the present writ petition as W.P. Nos. 20967 ..... 20967(A) ..... 20967(D) of 1994. All the five writ petitions are disposed of through this common order.

Since original respondents 5 and 6 have died, I.As. I and II are allowed. Their legal representatives are permitted to be brought on record. Necessary amendments to be carried out forthwith.

The original orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside only insofar as Sy. Nos. 60 and 87/1 of Kemral Village are concerned. The cases along with the records are remanded to the Tribunal for a de novo decision as far as these survey numbers are concerned. The rest of the Tribunal''s order to stand confirmed. The Tribunal to ensure that all necessary parties or their legal representatives, as the case may be, are brought on record and that they have notice of the proceeding. Parties shall be permitted to lead additional evidence if they so desire. Status quo in the mean while as far as these two survey numbers are concerned and if any interim orders are necessary, liberty to move the Tribunal for this purpose. The writ petitions succeed to this extent and stand disposed of. No order as to costs.