IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA1A AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE MF SALDANHA WP.. 16200/1996 BETWEEN Parameswar Bhat since deceased by LRs— 1 Gurunath Parameswar Bhat ma.Jorq agriculturist 2 Ramariath Parameswar Bhat major, agriculturist both are r/of,Hulemalgi Village Bengal Gram, Sirsi Taluk, lhK. Dist PETITIONERS (By Sri SR Hegde Hudlamane, Adv) AND 1 Land Tribunal Sirsi, reps by its Chairman Sirsi, 1JK Dist 2 State of Iarnataka rep by its Secretary Revenue Dept, Vidhana Soudha Bangalore1 3 Sowmya Taz Bangari Harijan majors coolie, r/of Bengade Village Sirsi Taluk, UK Dist RESPONDENTS (SmtMR Shanthakumari, HCGP for R1 & R 2 (Sri Shivaswamy, Adv for R 3) Memorandum of writ petition is filed under Arts226 & 227 of the Constitution praying that this Court be pleased to quash vide Annex.H dt. 18396 by R1 etc Writ petition coming an for prly hearing this day, the Court made the followinq: This writ petition assails an order dt 1S396 passed by the Tribunal pursuant to a remand by this Court An earlier order dt 171O1981 had been passed by the Tribunal in favour- of respondent-3 and this Court quashed that order on two grounds the main one being that the petitioners who claim ownership rights in respect of the land as also being actual cultivators were neither made a party nor were they heard when the order was passed behind their back It is relevant for me to mention that after the remand, a period of about 15 years had passed in so far as we are now concerned with an order dt 1B39& Undoubtedly, the position that obtained as on 131974 is material but, the Tribunal ought to have lool-ed at the material produced by the petitioners and the respondent for purposes of judicially deciding the case on merits Whereas the petitioners learned advocate is ustif ied when he points out to me that the entries for the relevant year stand in the name of the petitioners and there is not even any reference to the respondent and furthermore they have reinforced their case by examining the neighbouring owner, the respondent—3 has not produced any evidence whatsoever in support of her plea The Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that when the earlier order was passed in 1981, there is a reference to the fact that the learned Member of the Tribunal had personally visited the spot and found the respondent—3 cultivating paddy Where the Tribunal has erred is in confirming the order dt. l71(.l9Bl which had been expressly set aside by this Court on the basis of the same material which was elicited behind the back of the petitioners This is not all because there is ample evidence produced by the petitioners i’ suppo t of their case which puts the matter beyond all doubt 2 The learned Govt Advocate drew my attention to te fact that the respondet3 is a poor person ard that she elongs to the Han jar cDmmunity and that therefore she has many limitations. I do fully agree that the Court is required to take these factors into conidaration and in appropriate cases due weiQhtaQe will certainly be civen because the Court will have to take into account the realities under which several poor persons are labouring. 3. In the present case the mere aspect of sympathy cannot override the riqhts of the present petitioners as far as their property is concerned and this is precisely where the Tribunal was in error 4 HavinQ regard to the aforesaid situation, the impugned order is set asides The petition is allowed In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs Sd& ]UDGE GB /