Nadakerappa Since Deceased By Lrs. vs Pillamma Since Deceased By Lrs. .

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7657­7658 OF 2017

NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

(1) These appeals are directed against the judgment dated

30.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2022.03.31

Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1563 of 2007 connected 16:39:21 IST Reason:

with Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007.

2 (2) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are

as follows:

Smt. Pillamma w/o Late Mariyappa and her children

(respondents herein) filed Writ Petition No(s).27230/2002 and

23034/2002 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

challenging the order dated 27.02.1989 passed by the Karnataka

Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the Order of the Land

Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and also the Notice dated 24.05.2002

issued by the Land Tribunal for correcting the extent of land found

in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982. They are the

owners of the lands bearing Survey No(s).4/7, 4/2 and 1/11

measuring 35 guntas, 25 guntas and 1 acre 14 guntas respectively

of Srigandadakaval Village, Bangalore North Taluk. Smt. Pillamma

died during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court.

Her children who were already on record continued the proceedings

before the High Court. Their father, late Mariyappa s/o Channappa

had purchased the lands under a deed of sale dated 30.08.1954

from one Venkatappa.

3

(3) Appellants are the legal representatives of one Nadakerappa.

Nadakerappa claiming to be the tenant of the said lands filed two

applications in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights of the said

lands along with two other lands i.e. Survey No(s).4/14 and 65.

The Land Tribunal by its order dated 30.04.1982 granted

occupancy rights in favour of Nadakerappa in respect of the lands

bearing Survey No.4/7 to an extent of 35 guntas, Survey No.4/2 to

an extent of 25 guntas and Survey No.1/11 to an extent of 25

guntas. Certificate of registration was issued in favour of

Nadakerappa in respect of these lands on 08.09.1982 to the extent

indicated above. Nadakerappa paid an amount of Rs.462/­ towards

premium for the grant of certificate of registration. The

compensation in respect of the granted lands was ordered to be

paid to the land owners on 27.11.1984 by Nadakerappa. It is to be

noticed here that Mariyappa was not made party to the said

applications filed by Nadakerappa. In the application dated

31.12.1974, the name of one Ramakrishnappa s/o Byrappa was

shown as land owner and, in another application dated 30.10.1974,

the ownership column was left blank.

4

(4) Mariyappa filed Writ Petition No.12461/1984 before the High

Court challenging the order of the Land Tribunal which came to be

transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the same

was numbered as LRA No.179/1986. The Appellate Authority by its

order dated 27.02.1989, dismissed the appeal for default.

Mariyappa died in the year 1993.

(5) Mariyappa, during his life time, had filed an application before

the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, to rectify the revenue entry

for the year 1989­90 and to show his name in respect of 29 guntas

of land in Survey No.1/11. However, on 25.04.1992, the Tahsildar

passed an order adverse to the interest of Mariyappa. Mariyappa

filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.

No.196/1992­93 challenging the said order which was also

dismissed on 26.10.1995. Since Mariyappa died in the year 1993,

his legal representatives filed Revision Petition No.118/2001 before

the Special Deputy Commissioner challenging the order of the

Assistant Commissioner. The said Revision Petition was allowed by

the Special Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 19.04.2002.

Nadakerappa challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition 5

No.20187/2002 before the High Court which was allowed on

01.07.2002. Consequently, the order of the Tahsildar, the Assistant

Commissioner, as also the Special Deputy Commissioner, were set

aside. The order in Writ Petition No.20187/2002 stood confirmed

in Writ Appeal No.3971/2002.

(6) In the meanwhile, Nadakerappa filed a suit bearing

O.S.No.7459/1991 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seeking

injunction in respect of 1 acre 14 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11

of Srigandadakaval Village. The Civil Court granted an order of

temporary injunction in the said suit. This order was challenged by

the land owners in MFA No.319/1993 before the High Court. The

said appeal was disposed of by the High Court on 08.07.1998

restraining the parties from cutting and removing the trees standing

thereon to an extent of 29 guntas. Finally, O.S. No.7459/1991 was

decreed by the Civil Court on 21.05.2003. The land owners

challenged this judgment by filing an appeal, RFA No.1134/2003

before the High Court. After considering the matter in detail, the

High Court has dismissed the appeal on 10.01.2014. 6

(7) Nadakerappa had filed a memo in the year 2002 before the

Land Tribunal seeking correction of a clerical mistake found in the

order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982. On receipt of the

memo, the Land Tribunal issued a notice to the land owners for an

enquiry. The land owners filed Writ Petition No.23034/2002

challenging the validity and correctness of the said notice. They

also filed Writ Petition No.27230/2002 challenging the Appellate

Authority’s order dated 27.02.1989 dismissing LRA No.179/1986

and also the order dated 30.04.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal

granting occupancy rights in favour of Nadakerappa.

(8) Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated

25.07.2007 dismissed Writ Petition No.27230/2002 filed by the

land owners on the ground of delay and laches. The other writ

petition, i.e. W.P.No.23034/2002 filed by the land owners was

allowed and the notice dated 24.05.2002 was quashed by the High

Court.

(9) Nadakerappa represented by his legal representatives

challenged the order passed in Writ Petition No.23034/2002 by

filing Writ Appeal No.1563/2007. The land owners challenged the 7

other order passed in Writ Petition No.27230/2002 by filing Writ

Appeal No.1950/2007. The Division Bench of the High Court

allowed Writ Appeal No.1950/2007 and the order passed in Writ

Petition No.27230/2002 was set aside. Consequently, the order of

the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and the order passed by the

Appellate Authority in LRA No.179/1986 were quashed and the

matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. In

view of this order, the High Court held that Writ Appeal

No.1563/2007 has become infructuous. As noticed above, these

orders are under challenge in these appeals.

(10) Therefore, two questions arise for consideration in these

appeals. The first question is whether the Division Bench was

justified in reversing the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.

No.23034/2002, setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated

30.04.1982 and remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal. The

second question is whether the Learned Single Judge was justified

in quashing the notice dated 24.05.2002.

(11) On the first question, Shri A.N. Venugopal Gowda, learned

senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that there is a 8

long and inordinate delay of 20 years in challenging the order of the

Land Tribunal. He further submits that the appellants are in

possession of the lands in question as protected tenants from the

year 1955 and the respondents were well­aware of the proceedings

as early as in the year 1993. Mariyappa, the predecessor­in­

interest of the respondents had not prosecuted the case against

Nadakerappa. Accepting theses grounds, the learned Single Judge

has dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High

Court has set aside the said order in a mechanical manner and has

remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal without any justification.

He has urged several other grounds in support of the order of the

Learned Single Judge on this question.

(12) On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh and Ms. Kiran Suri,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submit that

Nadakerappa filed the application in Form No.7 for grant of

occupancy rights wherein the column earmarked for the name of

the landlord was kept blank. Though there is no provision for filing

a second Form No.7, he filed the same in which the name of the

landlord was shown as “Rama Krishnappa”. It is further submitted 9

that Nadakerappa obtained the order of the Land Tribunal dated

30.04.1982 by playing fraud upon the said Tribunal. The

respondents, having obtained the order by playing fraud, cannot be

allowed to keep the fruits of the said order. In view of the above,

finality of the litigation cannot be pressed into service. In this

connection, they have relied on several judgments of this Court.

Secondly, it is submitted that there is no documentary evidence

before the Land Tribunal to establish the relationship of tenant and

landlord which is a pre­requisite under Section 2(33) of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

(13) On the second question, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.N.

Venugopal Gowda, submits that having regard to the amendment to

Section 48­A of the Act wherein a proviso was added by Act No.31 of

1995, Nadakerappa filed a memo for correction of clerical error in

the order. The Land Tribunal rightly issued notice on this memo to

the respondents. Learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified

in quashing the said notice on the ground of delay. However,

learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, have sought

to justify the order of the learned Single Judge. 10

(14) Before considering the above questions, it is necessary to

consider the contention of the learned counsel for the parties as to

the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant

between Mariyappa, the landlord and Nadakerappa who had filed

the application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in

respect of the lands in question. Materials on record clearly

establish that Venkatappa was the original owner of these lands.

He had executed a sale deed dated 28.08.1954 in favour of

Mariyappa which was registered on 30.08.1954. However,

Venkatappa sold these properties again in favour of Sharabaradhya

by a deed of sale dated 07.07.1954 registered on 21.10.1954. As

the sale deed executed in favour of Sharabaradhya was subsequent

to the sale deed executed in favour of Mariyappa, Sharabaradhya

could not get any right, title or interest over the said properties.

Sharabaradhya executed registered lease of deeds dated 29.04.1955

and 23.05.1956 in respect of the lands in question in favour of

Nadakerappa. It is relevant to note here that Sharabaradhya

executed the registered deed of relinquishment on 24.09.1964 in

respect of these properties in favour of Venkatappa. It is no doubt 11

true that when these lease deeds were executed in favour of

Nadakerappa, Sharabaradhya had no right, title or interest in

respect of these properties. However, after the execution of these

lease deeds, the name of Nadakerappa was entered in the RTC. It is

also clear that after execution of the lease deeds, Nadakerappa was

put in possession of the properties as a tenant. The contention of

the learned counsel for the landlord is that there is no contract of

tenancy between the landlord Mariyappa and Nadakerappa.

However, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that

Nadakerappa was a protected tenant as defined under sub­section

(34) of Section 2 of the Act.

(15) The expression ‘tenant’ is defined in sub­section (34) of

Section 2 of the Act. As per this provision, a tenant includes a

person who is a protected tenant. The expression ‘tenancy’ is

defined in sub­section (33) of Section 2, which means relationship

of landlord and tenant. Sub­section (27) of Section 2 defines the

expression ‘protected tenant’, which means a tenant of any land if

he has held it continuously and cultivating it personally for a period 12

of not less than twelve years prior to the appointed day. The

appointed day here is 01.03.1974.

(16) Materials on record would clearly indicate that Nadakerappa

was in possession and cultivating the lands from the date of the

aforesaid lease deeds. In fact, this position has been admitted by

the landlord which is evident from the documents produced by the

appellant along with IA No.103954 of 2021. The appellant has

produced the certified copy of an application in Form No.7 dated

27.12.1974 filed by Mariyappa seeking grant of occupancy rights of

some other lands in Sajjepalya Village, Bangalore, North Taluk

dated 27.12.1974. While filing application in Form No.7, the

applicant is not only required to give the description of the land in

respect of which he seeks registration of occupancy rights under

Section 45 of the Act but is also required to give details of the lands

held by him or his family for the purpose of considering ceiling on

land holdings under Chapter­IV of the Act. The form of the

application is statutorily prescribed under Rule 19 of the Karnataka

Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (for short ‘the Rules’). Form No.7

prescribed under Rule 19(1) is as under:

13

“FORM 7 [See Rule 19(1)] Application under Section 48­A(1) for registering as an occupant under Section 45

To

The Tribunal……………………………..Taluk Name of the applicant……………………………

Age Profession Place of residence

I am the tenant/sub­tenant of the following land:

Name of Taluk Village Sy. Plot Area Assessment Period for landlord/landlord No. or A.G. Rs.P. which s and his/their Hissa applicant addresses No. has been cultivating the land as tenant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I have been cultivating the land as a tenant for……………years.

I am interested in getting registered as an occupant of the land on the terms and conditions laid down in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

I, the family of which I am a member, hold the following lands in my name and in the names of my family members other than those described above as owner/tenant/or in any other capacity:­

Taluk Village Sy. No. Plot or Area Assessment Capacity Hissa No. in which held

1. Self

2. Wife

3. Minor Children

4. Unmarried daughters

5.

Any other particulars Place:………………… 14

Date:…………………. Signature of applicant

The Tahsildar should check up the above information with reference to original records and keep ready for enquiry by the Tribunal.

Note: The information given above, if found to be incomplete or incorrect the petitioner is liable to conviction and levy of penalties as provided under Section 125 of the Act.”

(17) In the Form No.7 filed by Mariyappa, he has admitted that

Survey Nos.11/1, 4/2 and 4/7 of Srigandadakaval Village owned by

him; is in the possession of Nadakerappa as a tenant.

(18) Learned senior counsel appearing for the landowners submits

that the document Form No.7 said to have been filed by Mariyappa,

is a fabricated document and that the respondents have filed a

complaint before the jurisdictional police station in this regard. It is

also submitted that there is no statutory requirement for including

the lands owned by the tenant in the said application.

(19) Form No.7 filed by the appellant is a certified copy. Having

perused the said document, we have no hesitation to hold that it is

not a fabricated document. Form No.7 requires the applicant to

disclose the other lands held by him and the members of his family.

When the landlord himself admits that Nadakerappa was a tenant

as early as on 27.12.1974, there is no question of holding that no 15

relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Mariyappa and

Nadakerappa. Perusal of the materials on record, makes it clear

that Nadakerappa was in possession and cultivating the said lands

from the year 1955 and was qualified to be treated as a ‘protected

tenant’.

(20) Now, let us consider the first question involved in these

appeals. As noticed above, Mariyappa was the owner of the

property by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 30.08.1954. However,

Nadakerappa did not show his name in the application filed on

30.10.1974 in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights. In fact, he

did not show anybody’s name as the land owner of the property and

left the said column blank. However, in the concluding part of his

application in Form No.7, he has mentioned that the said property

is standing in the name of Mariyappa s/o Channappa. In the

second application in Form No.7 filed by Nadakerappa dated

31.12.1974 he has shown the name of one Ramakrishnappa s/o

Byrappa. The land Tribunal granted occupancy rights by Order

dated 30.04.1982 in respect of Survey No(s).4/7, 4/2 and 1/11 to

an extent of 35 guntas, 25 guntas and 25 guntas respectively. 16

Mariyappa challenged the said order of the Land Tribunal by filing

W.P. NO.12461/1984 before the High Court of Karnataka. This

Case was referred to the Appellate Authority wherein it was re­

numbered as LRA No.179/1986. The said LRA was dismissed on

27.02.1989. No steps were taken up by Mariyappa to seek setting

aside of this order. Mariyappa passed away on 15.10.1993. The

legal representatives of Mariyappa filed W.P. No.27230/2002

seeking quashing of the order of the Land Tribunal dated

30.04.1982 and also the order of the Appellate Authority dated

27.02.1989. This writ petition was filed after a long delay of 13

years from the date of dismissal of LRA No.179/1986. The only

reason assigned for the delay was the financial problems and ill­

health. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has dismissed this

writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

(21) As mentioned above, it is clear that though LRA was dismissed

by the Appellate Authority on 27.02.1989, Mariyappa did not

choose to challenge the said order. Even otherwise, the respondents

were aware of the order of the Land Tribunal which is evident from

different proceedings initiated by them against the appellants. The 17

dismissal of LRA No.179/1986 was accepted by Mariyappa. In fact,

in the year 1992, Mariyappa filed an application to rectify the entry

for the year 1989­90 by entering his name in respect of 29 guntas

of land in Survey No.1/11. The Tahsildar dismissed the said

application of Mariyappa on 25.04.1992. This order was challenged

by Mariyappa by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner

which was also dismissed on 26.10.1995. In the meantime,

Mariyappa died. After a lapse of seven years a review petition i.e.

R.P.No.118/2001 was filed by the legal representatives of

Mariyappa before the Special Deputy Commissioner which was

allowed on 19.04.2002. Nadakerappa challenged this order by filing

W.P.No.20187/2002 before the High Court which was allowed by

the learned Single Judge on 01.07.2002. A writ appeal,

W.A.No.3971/2002, filed by the legal representatives of Mariyappa

was dismissed on 02.08.2002. After the order passed by the Land

Tribunal, Nadakerappa’s name was entered in the RTC to the full

extent of 1 acre 14 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11. When

attempts were made by the landlord to dispossess him of the said

land, he filed a civil suit bearing O.S. No.4171/1991. The Trial 18

Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the Nadakerappa.

This order was modified by the Order in MFA No.319/1993. These

proceedings would clearly show the grant of occupancy rights in

favour of Nadakerappa. Therefore, they cannot plead ignorance of

grant of occupancy right on 30.04.1982. There is also no merit in

the contention of the respondents­landlords that on account of ill

health and financial problems, they could not approach the Court

within a reasonable time. We are of the view that the learned Single

Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of

delay. The observations of the learned Single Judge in this regard

are as under:

“After passing of the order of the Land Tribunal, proceedings have arisen both on civil side as well as on the revenue side. As aforementioned, the dispute arose between the parties with regard to change of katha in the year1989. Ultimately, the matter came up to the Division Bench in this Court in W.A. No.3971/2002, wherein it is held that the parties have to get their matter settled in an appropriate forum such as the Land Tribunal. As aforementioned, civil suit is also filed by the third respondent against the petitioners herein for injunction in O.S. No.7459/1991. Now the matter is pending in RFA No. 1134/2003 before this Court. In all these revenue as well as civil proceedings, the petitioners herein are parties. The appeal filed by the petitioners in LRA No.179/86 before the Land Reforms 19

Appellate Authority was dismissed for default on 27.2.1989. W.P. 27230/2002 questioning the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority dated 27.2.1989 and the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.4.1982 is filed before this Court in the year 2002 i.e., after the lapse of about 13 years from the date of dismissal of LRA No. 179/1986. The only reason assigned by the petitioners for filing the belated writ petition is that because of financial and ill health they could not move this Court. The said reason cannot be accepted inasmuch as the petitioners have been fighting litigation either in Revenue Courts or in Civil Court or before this Court……………...; The petitioners knew very well the order passed by the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority at least in the year 1989, when the revenue litigation arose. Moreover the petitioners in their written statement filed in O.S. No.7459/1991, have stated that the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3 over 25 guntas in Sy. No.1/11. Thus, W.P. No.27230/2002 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. This Court odes not wish to unsettle the settled matter by entertaining the writ petition. Petitioners have accepted the order of the Land Tribunal and have acted on the said basis for 13 long years. Now it is not open for them to contend that they did not know the order of the Land Tribunal.”

(22) However, the contention of the respondents is that the name of

land owner was not shown in the application Form No.7 and that

the order from the Land Tribunal was obtained by suppression of

material facts.

20 (23) We have already noticed that in the first application though

the name of Nadakerappa was not shown in the landlord’s column,

the same was mentioned at its concluding portion. Therefore, it

was unnecessary for him to file the second application wherein the

land owner was shown as Ramakrishnappa. These applications

were filed as early as on 30.10.1974 and on 31.12.1974. The

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is a beneficent legislation for

granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants of agricultural

lands. It is a well­settled canon of construction that in construing

the provisions of such enactments, the court should adopt a

construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the

Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render

the protection illusory. The object of the Act was mainly to confer

ownership on the tenants of the lands. Section 45 was introduced

by Act No.1 of 1974 w.e.f. 01.03.1974 providing for registration of

occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. Rules have been framed

in exercise of the power conferred under Section 137 of the Act to

effectuate the purpose of the Act. Rule 19 provides for the form of

application and notice. This rule clearly states that on receipt of an 21

application, the Tahsildar shall send extracts of the application to

the Tribunals concerned. So far as the lands in his Taluk are

concerned, the Tahsildar has to verify the particulars mentioned in

the application with reference to the revenue records including the

record of rights wherever they are prepared and also note the same

on the application.

(24) It is common knowledge that most of the tenants during the

relevant point of time i.e. nineteen seventies were underprivileged

and illiterate villagers hailing from remote and far­flung areas. A

large number of tenants were lacking from the adequate and basic

necessities of life and were suffering from the acute poverty.

Legislature has recognized this aspect and has cast responsibility

on the Tahsildar to verify the particulars mentioned in the

application with reference to the Revenue Records and to note the

same on the application. Therefore, it was the duty of the Tahsildar

to verify the Revenue Records and other documents and

incorporate/record the name of the owner of the land in Form No.7.

Having perused the materials on record, we are satisfied that the 22

tenant in the instant case has not practiced any fraud in order to

get the occupancy rights registered in his name.

(25) The Division Bench, without assigning any cogent reasons,

has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and has

remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. It is settled law that the

order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of

remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a

proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to

be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits.

Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the

Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of

remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal. We are of

the view that, in the instant case, the Division Bench has remanded

the matter without any justification.

(26) In view of our finding, as above, it is unnecessary to consider

the other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on

the first question.

23

(27) Coming to the second question, W.P.No.23034/2002 was filed

challenging the notice issued by the Land Tribunal dated

24.05.2002 on the basis of a memo filed by the tenant for correction

of the survey number. A proviso has been added to Section 48­A of

‘the Act’ by Act No.31 of 1995 which has come into force w.e.f.

20.10.1995 which reads as under:

“Provided further that the Tribunal may on its own or on the application of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in writing correct the extent of land in any order passed by it after causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties.” (28) In view of the above proviso, it was permissible for the tenant

to make an application seeking correction of the extent of land in

the order of the Land Tribunal. The proviso was inserted on

20.10.1995 and the memo seeking correction of the order of the

Land Tribunal was filed in the year, 2002. The learned Single Judge

was, therefore, not justified in quashing the Notice issued by the

Land Tribunal on the ground of delay of about 20 years. We have

already noticed that most of the tenants are villagers from remote

areas and most of them are illiterate persons and that the Act is a

beneficent legislation. This aspect has to be kept in mind while 24

deciding cases under the Act. Whether the order requires correction

or not has to be decided by the Land Tribunal, after hearing the

parties. In fact, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P.

No.20187 of 2002 on 01.07.2012 which arose out of the dispute

relating to entries in revenue records, had observed that whether

Nadakerappa is entitled to the entire extent of 1 Acre 14 Guntas in

Sy.No. 1/11, and whether his application for correction is

maintainable are matters to be decided by the Tribunal. This order

of the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by the Division

Bench. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the

learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the Notice. The

Division Bench has held that in view of setting aside the Order of

the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982, the Writ Appeal has become

infructuous. In our view, the matter requires adjudication by the

Land Tribunal on this question.

(29) In view of the above, we pass the following order:

(I) The order in Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007 dated

30.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Karnataka at Bengaluru is set aside and the order of the 25

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27230/2002 dated 25.07.2007

is restored.

(II) The order in Writ Appeal NO.1563 of 2007 dated

30.12.2014 is set aside and the order of the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.23034/2002 dated 25.07.2002 is also set

aside. We direct the Land Tribunal to hold an inquiry on the

notice dated 24.05.2002 and pass appropriate orders thereon

in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

(30) These appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

…….……………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

…….……………………………J. (KRISHNA MURARI) New Delhi;

March 31, 2022.