Smt. Cicilia Kutino and Sri. Henry James Pinto vs The State of Karnataka, The Land Tribunal, Mudabidri, Somappa Poojari, since deceased (Smt. Shakunthala) and Sri. Manjappa Poojari, since deceased (Sri. Boja Poojari, Smt. Susheela Poojari, Sri. Dooja Poojari and Smt. Kusuma Poojari)

H. Billappa, J.—In these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 24.5.2012, passed by the Land Tribunal, Mudabidri, Mangalore Taluk, in LRT 41:81-82, vide Annexure-M. By the impugned order at Annexure-M, the Land Tribunal, Mudabidri, Mangalore Taluk, has granted occupancy rights in favour of the respondents 3(a) and 4(a) to (d) in respect of Sy. Nos. 8/15, 8/7, 8/10, 8/11 and 83/1 of Mennabettu village measuring 24 cents, 56 cents, 1 acre 86 cents, 1 acre 31 cents and 2 acres 75 cents respectively.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

Briefly stated the facts are:

Somapa Poojari, the father of the respondent No. 3(a) filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 8/15 measuring 24 cents, Sy. No. 8/7 measuring 93 cents, Sy. No. 8/8 measuring 10 cents and Sy. No. 8/10 measuring 2 acres 72 cents, in all 3 acres 99 cents, situated at Mennabettu village, Mangalore Taluk. Manjappa Poojary, the father of the respondents 4(a) to (d) filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 8/11 measuring 1 acre 31 cents, Sy. No. 8/7 measuring 90 cents, Sy. No. 8/10 measuring 1 acre 60 cents and Sy. No. 83/1 measuring 2 acres, in all 5 acres 81 cents, situated at Mennabettu village, Mangalore Taluk. The applications filed by Somappa Poojary and Manjappa Poojary were clubbed in LRT 41/81-82. By order dated 25.10.1981, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights jointly in favour of the applicants in respect of Sy. No. 8/15 measuring 24 cents, Sy. No. 8/7 measuring 56 cents, Sy. No. 8/.10 measuring 1 acre 86 cents, Sy. No. 8/11 measuring 1 acre 31 cents and Sy. No. 83/1 measuring 2 acres 75 cents, in all 6 acres 72 cents. It was challenged in W.P. No. 22272/82. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Tribunal by its order dated 8.3.1989 granted occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 8/15 measuring 24 cents, Sy. No. 8/7 measuring 56 cents, Sy. No. 8/10 measuring 1 acre 86 cents. Somappa Poojary and LRs of Manjappa Poojary challenged the order in W.P. No. 33156/1993. By order dated 5.6.2002, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter, by order dated 20.5.2003, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights jointly in favour of Somappa Poojary and LRs of Manjappa Poojary in respect of Sy. No. 8/15 measuring 24 cents, Sy. No. 8/7 measuring 50 cents, Sy. No. 8/10 measuring. 1 acres 86 cents, Sy. No. 8/11 measuring 1 acre 31 cents, Sy. No. 83/ 1 measuring 2 acres 75 cents. It was challenged in W.P. No. 30115/13. By order dated 9.6.2008, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration with a direction to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of constitution of the Land Tribunal. It is stated, the petitioners gave representations to the Land Tribunal on 12.6.2009 and 20.7.2009. On 2.9.2009, the case was called before the Land Tribunal. The counsel for the applicants has appeared. The matter has been adjourned to 14.10.2010. On 14.10.2010, the Land Tribunal has directed notice to the landlords. On 18.11.2010, affidavit evidence of Smt. Shankuntala respondent No. 3(a) has been filed. It is stated, during the first week of March 2011 the petitioners came to know about the proceedings. They have appeared before the Tribunal on 17.3.2011. The case has been adjourned to 7.4.2011. The petitioners have raised objection contending that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings as six months time granted by this Court has expired. Thereafter, the Tribunal by its order dated 24.5.2012 has granted occupancy rights in favour of the respondents 3(a) and 4(a) to (d) in respect of Sy. No. 8/15 measuring 24 cents, Sy. No. 8/7 measuring 56 cents, Sy. No. 8/10 measuring 1 acre 86 cents, Sy. No. 8/11 measuring 1 acre 31 cents and Sy. No. 83/1 measuring 2 acres 75 cents. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed these wit petitions.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence on record and the impugned order is not a speaking order. He also submitted that opportunity was not given to the petitioners to lead their evidence. Further he submitted that without recording any finding as to whether the lands were tenanted lands or not and whether the applicants were tenants, the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

As against this, the learned AGA submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Tribunal considering the material on record has granted occupancy rights and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

The respondents 3(a) and 4(a) to (d) are served and they remain unrepresented.

I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned AGA.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the impugned order calls for interference?

It is relevant to note, the respondent No. 3 Somappa Poojari and respondent No. 4 Manjappa Poojari have filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights. Somappa Poojari has claimed occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 8/15 measuring 24 cents, Sy. No. 8/7 measuring 93 cents, Sy. No. 8/8 measuring 10 cents, Sy. No. 8/10 measuring 2 acre 72 cents, in all 3 acres 99 cents, situated at Mennabettu village. Manjappa Poojari has claimed occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 8/11 measuring 1 acre 31 cents, Sy. No. 8/7 measuring 90 cents, Sy. No. 8/10 measuring 1 acre 60 cents, Sy. No. 83/1 measuring 2 acres, in all 5 acres 81 cents, situated at Mennabettu village. Earlier, the petitioners and also the respondents have approached this court. Ultimately, in W.P. No. 30115/2013 this court has remitted the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to dispose of the matter within six months. It appears, the Tribunal was not functioning. Thereafter, the Tribunal has been reconstituted from January 2009. Thereafter, the applicants have appeared. Subsequently, the petitioners have also appeared. The petitioners have raised objection contending that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings as six months time granted by this court has expired. The petitioners have not participated in the proceedings. The impugned order shows that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence. Without considering the evidence, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The petitioners have not participated in the proceedings. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is appropriate to remit the matter for fresh consideration.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-M, dated 24.5.2012, passed by the Land Tribunal, Mudabidri, Mangalore Taluk, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal, Mudabidri, with a direction to reconsider the same, in accordance with law, by giving opportunity to the parties, after issuing notice.