F IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ !CARNWrATCA AT BA3AL ORE DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPAl GODA WRIT PETITION No.16291/94 C/W WRIT PETITION N .28513/94 (IN W.P .No .16291/1994) BETWEEN: Mandar, s/o .Dattatreya Kulkarni, by hig Special Power of Attorney Hol der Sri Suregh B.Hukkeri, aged about 42 years, Occupation - Service & Agriculture, Residing at No. 1l,, 2nd Main, II Block, BEL Layout, Vidyaranya Pura, Barigalore-560 013. ..PEIITIONER (By Sri R.B. Guttal, Advocate) AND: 1. Srnt. Narmada Bai, w/o.Narayana Rao, Nadagowda, r her Gena1 Power of Attorney Holder sri.Anand, Sb. Krighnoji Kulkarni, residing at Vaderahatty, Gokak Taluk. 2. Land Tribunal at Gokak, by its Chairman, Gokak Taluk. . ,?ESPOND!NTS (By Sri Ravi.S.Ba]cai for R—1, Bharathi Nagesh, HCGP for R—2) ‘‘ /—_ —2— This Writ Petition is filed mder Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order No.L.R.A. 3..: Vadera batty, 3/55, Gokak, dated 9.2 .94 at Annexte—E etc., (IN W.P .No.28 51 3/94) BETWEN: Smt .Narmadabai, /o.Narayan Rao, Nadagouda, Age: 74 years, By her Power of Attorney Holder, Anand, Sb. Krishnaji Kulkarai, Age: 27 years, Rio. Vaderatti, Tal: Gokak, Dist: Belga.sn. . .P!r ITIONER (By Sri Ravi.g.Balikaj, Advocate) AND: 1. The Land Tribunal, Gokak, by its Chairman, Gokak, Diet: Belgain. 2 • The State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary to the Revenue Department, M.S.Building, Dr.Amb&kar Road, Bangalore-56 0 001. 3. Mar3ar, Dattatraya.Kulkarni, Age: major, By his P .A .Hol der, Suresh. B. Hukkeri, Age: major, Occ: Service, R/e. No.1160, 2rr3 Main, II Block, BEL Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore—13. ..EPONDE’!S (By Sri R.B.Guttal for R—3, M. Bhar athi Nagesh, flP for R-1&2) / —3— Thi 5 Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to auash the order of the Land Tribunal dated 15.12.1977 vide Atrnexure_A etc., These Writ Petitions are conir on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER In both these writ petitions one is the tenant and the other is the landlord chai1iging the impugned orders. 2. The petitioner—tenant in W.P.28513/94 hag challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order at AnnexureA contending that the 5 aid order is nullity in the eye of law ag it is not signed by the Land Tribunal members and the chairman a5 required under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Ref ormg Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the petitioner ri.Ravi.S.Ba1ikai placed strong relianie on the juc3nent of this Court reported in GAADHARAYYA GUWIDDAIAH NARERAMATH vs. LAN 1 TRIBUNAL, HALTYAL & ANH?R (1979(2) Kar.L.J. page is) for the proposition that an order cannot be gaid to be the order of the Tribunal in the eye of law, where it was signed only the Chairman of the Tribunal ar it does not disclose that the other memberg of the Tribunal —4— had taken part in the deliherations and while passing of the impugned order. Therefore, he sunits that on this short ground the impugned order In the writ petition is liable to be quashed. 3. Petitioner—landlord in other writ petition No.16291/94 has challenged the impugned order at Annexure_E dated 9.2.1994 mainly on the ground that the Tribunal had r jurisdiction to reopen the enquiry and. grant occupancy rights in favour of the tenat w1 is petitioner in the first petition. It is stated that his Form No.7 was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 15.12.1977. It is also furthr contended that unless that order was challenged and quashed by thi 9 Court, it was rt open for the Tribunal to reopen the matter again and grant occupancy rights in favour of the scal1ed tenant petitioner in the first petition. The learned counsel further gui ts that the order is re sustai nabi e in law as the Tribunal ha 5 rt given sufficient and adequate opportunity to his client to place material on record to 5 how that the claim of the petitioner in the first writ petition is not tenable as the land in ution wa not a tenanted —5— land at arv point of time. He further suits that the decision i taken by the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner srnt.Narmadabai Nadagouda without taking into consideration the doceatary idence for the relevant year. The Tribunal has placed reliare on the solitary gtatemeflt of the witng Balpa Lakkappa Bhistannavar whose testimony is not trustwOrthy. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order challenged in thi 5 writ petition is liable to be quashed. 4. I have perused the avermts of both the writ petitions and the impued orders. A8 could be seen from the impugned order at AnnexureA dated 15.12.1977, the submission of the learned counsel Mr.Ravi 3.3aljkaj is correct. The said order is 9 igned by the Chairman alone. It i not signed by the other members of the Tribunal. Therefore, I hold that the said order is not an order passed by the Tribunal. Hence it is nullity in the eye of law. On this short ground the gaid order is liable to be quashed. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for \_\ 24 —6— the petitioner Mr.Guttal appearing in tha connted writ petition is al 5 o tenable for the reason tIt the earlier order wa not cI11enged by the so-called tenant. Unless that order is quashed by this Court, Tribunal has no jurisdic tion to reopen the matter and conduct an enquiry and grant occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner in the first writ petition. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circ1StaXes of this case and the way in which the Tribunal ha 5 passed the order dated 15.12.1977 and notice issued to the petitioner in the first petition intimating him that hould be bk. enauired on 20.5.1985 reatfA an impression to the petitioner that no order came to be passed by the Tribunal rejecting the ap1ication. Imy view, it is a proper and fit case to quash th the orders and to rgnit t matters for fresh disposal. Hence, I pass the following order: Writ Petitions are allowed. Rule issued in both the writ petitions are made absolute. The orders impugned in the respective petitions are hereby quashed. The matter remitted back —7-. to the Land Tribunal, for fresh conside ration after giving,pportunity i both the parties and to dispose of the 5 ame in cordance with law within 5 iX months from the date of receipt of this order • No costs. ti-tJi flL— Government 4k-is permitted to file Memo o(Appeararce within two weeks from today. Sd/ IUDGE Bg/—050698 Bg/—27 0698