Shylendra Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act by the fourth respondent in Writ Petition No. 16502/2005, which was disposed of by the Learned Single Judge on 05.06.2008 by allowing the writ petition and therefore the fourth respondent in writ petition aggrieved by that order has questioned the same before us.
(2.) THE writ petition was filed as many as 10 persons who had claimed interest in agricultural land in Sy.No.67/1 measuring 5 acres 8 guntas located in Aliabad village, Bidar Taluka and who were aggrieved by an order dated 09.05.2005 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bidar Taluka, Bidar granting occupancy rights in favour of the present appellant who figured as fourth respondent in the writ petition. THE fourth respondent claiming as an inamdar had made an application in Form No. 1 seeking for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.67/1, and impleaded the State as sole respondent. THE application was allowed in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 09.05.2005. THE writ petitioners had questioned that order of the Land Tribunal contending that they are the owners in possession of the land, having purchased the same from its previous owners, some of whom had derived title under the very appellant. THE appellant is blowing hot and cold. THE appellant had not only sold the very land joining hand with others but had also thereafter trying to defraud the writ petitioners by seeking conferment of occupancy rights in respect of the very lands both under the provisions of Section 11 of the Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 as also under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Learned Single Judge on perusal of records and all other materials placed before the Court found that, the writ petition eventually deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the Land Tribunal in favour of the present appellant was not at all sustainable in law and it is nothing short of playing fraud on the writ petitioners. The present appellant had also taken the Tribunal for a ride by not only suppressing material facts but also by suppressing the earlier round of proceedings that had taken place between the very parties which had gone against the present appellant and by suppressing all such relevant material facts had managed to obtain the order from the Land Tribunal which was neither supportable on facts nor sustainable in law and actually in the nature of abuse of the pro0cess of the Tribunal and the provisions to defeat the rights of the writ petitioners even when certain civil litigation between the parties initiated in O.S. No. 164/2000 was pending before the Civil Court. The Learned Single Judge has also noticed that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was in grave violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was quashed.
(3.) THE Learned Single Judge further examined the need or otherwise of remanding the matter to the Tribunal as is the norm in all such situations where orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside either on the ground of want of appropriate order or any other technical reasons and for reconsideration of the entire matter by applying the correct provisions of law and after giving an opportunity to all concerned interested persons. THE Learned Single Judge found that this is not a situation where the remand is necessary as the orders made against the present appellant in earlier rounds of litigation had attained finally. THE Learned Single Judge on examination of merits of the claim made by the appellant before the Land Tribunal where an application in Form No. 1 in terms of Section 11 of the Certain Inams Abolition Act and an application in terms of Section 77A in Form No.7A under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 were pressed into service, held that both applications were not sustainable in law. THEre was no way of the present appellant getting any relief by Land Tribunal in her favour under either of these two statutory provisions and therefore, while quashing the order of the Tribunal, did not choose to remand the matter and left the matter as at that. Sri. Naresh Kulkarni, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently urged that the matter warrants interference in writ appeal jurisdiction, as the Learned Single Judge has failed to notice the real nature of the right of appellant and the appellant had produced voluminous records and documents to indicate that the ancestors of the appellant were Inamdars who had been granted the subject land by way of Inam, after the Inams were abolished, persons like the appellant who were cultivating the lands become entitled for grant of occupancy rights of the land. The Learned Single Judge has not examined such aspects in their proper perspective, therefore the matter warrants interference.;