a F / IN THE HIJH COURA OF KAAKA AT mNGAIE Dated this the 30th thy of June 19 BEF0?E THE HON’ StE MR,JUStICE M,’ 7 ,SALDaNHA WRIT iEII0N NO.19104/1998 Between: 1. Sri.Mallappa Son of Veerbhadrappa Kadi, major, Oca.Agriculture, r/o Keshapur, rq.Muddebiba, District Bijapur. 2. Sri.Parutappa Son of Sangappa Kadi, major, rest —do— ... Petitioners, (By Sri Vighneshaara 5.Shastri, Advocate). And: 1, The State of Karrataka represented by its Secreary to Governnt, Revenue Department, M.S.Building, Bangalore—560 03. 2, The Land Tribunal, Muddebihal, Taluka Mudde— oihal, District Bijapur, by its Chairman, 3. Smt.Saraswathibai wife of San 0 a Desamukh, major, r,o Keshapur, ‘r, I’uddebihal, Dist,T3ijaur, 4, Sri.S ngappa son of Channabasappa Deshmukh, major, c,Agriculture, r/o Keshapur, Lq, Mudde bihal, District Bijapur. .,. Respondts, (By Srnt,M,R,Shantha Kuri, ICOT, for —i & 2), C’, • , • q”C/ — — a a a a — — This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annemare—C dt.24—4—76 issued by sponden No, , a-c, This W.P. coming on for preliminary hearing this dat, the Court made the following:— ORDER I have heard the petiUoner’s learned Advocate and the learned Governn-ent Advocate. It is unnecessary to serve respondents 3 and 4 because this Court is only remanding the roceeding to the Trinal with a direction that a’l the concerned tties be serwd with notice and that the case he heard derrovo, 2. Once again, the contention is that the ribunal has arongly rejec ed the application for srsnt of ocup1ncy rights, ihat order was passed in +he year 1976 and su I vae sta’ements are pu in ha the pe’itioner was unaware of ‘he order until somehedjfA ‘/ni to have tried to disturb the petit ioner’s possession. £hus it is clear thS the it set of statements are inherently falee, he fact of the . . . . 3/— 4 7 — — matter is that if the Court were to refuse to entertain trE Petition the result would be gross injustice. Also, there is a on the part o f the rribunal in so r as the steps as 3 r quired under Section 48A—6 havben tthen end his C rt s recentl direote t Ic ‘ribuna)s o msure t} a copy of the order is served on each 1 rty cndckno’-1edsent taken 3, The etitioners learned Advocate his prima thcie satisfied m o facts that the petitioners have a case for consithration, in so fr as rtain cuments nove been produced which do mce out prima facie case for jgon— siration, Also,cryptic oder pased in lOb proccedes on o wronc fo ting viz,, nrely because, he ne of he Cow ccelvcr p.ea a, that t he petitioners not er+i led ogrsnt of occupancy rights. The impu’ed order is aocordfrply a a • 4,,’ r a 4 — a — set aside. T sri1nis directed to issue noice to the parties consir4% the materials produced and after hearing the parties to ss fresh orders ace ordin to law, The tetif ion accordingly s’ceedes, io order as -o cos+-s, Sd/s JUDGE 4 -7 t 1_ rek