S IN ThE HIGH COURT CF ICARNATAKA AT BANGAWRE DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE ThE HON’BLF MR • JUCTICF G.PATRI BASAVANA GOUD WRIT PETITION NUIBER 15416 OF 199C eae neew — e neaan aeea Between: Vrashabhadeva, Major son of late M. 0. Adhikari Mudrady Beedu Vannga village and P0 Karkala Tduk, OK —Petitioner (By Sri Seapath Anand Chatty, Advocate) And I 1 • The Lend Tribunal Karkela, represented by its Chairman P0 Karkala, UK 2. Set. Presa, Major, wife of late Manjunath Rca Mudrady illage ‘i P0 Karkala Tiuk, OK 3. The State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary DEpartment of Revenue Vidhana boudna Bangalore 580 001 —Resnonderts (By 3 ri B. N. Krishna t3 hat, Adv. for R—2; t. N. A. ahanthakumari HCGP for A—I and R—3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 aid 221 of the Constitution seeking to Quash the order dated 11—2—1993 at AnnezureeA passed by the Land Tribunal in TRL.948/74—15 in so far s it relates to the correction of the order of the Land Tribunal concluded in the year 1976. This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following: 0 RD R / / S eZe / ORDER Second respondent’s husoend Manjunatha R 50 had filed an application under Section e k& kQ of the Karnatake Land Reforms Act, 1961 before the first respondent Land Tribunal, Karkala, seeking confkment of occupancy rights in respect of certain lands. By the time the Land Iribunal passed the order dated 7—9-1976 at AnnexureB, the applicant Manjunatha Rao was dead,and there.. fore, the confErment of occupancy rights was done in favour of the second respondent Prema, the widow af the deceased applicant. The said Praaa,on 24—11—1986,aade an application as at AnMxure.D to the effect that the extent of land mentioned in respect of certain survey numbers in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 7—9—1976 varies with the extent of the land actually in her possession and enjoyment and that therafore,the order dated 1—9-1976 should be reviewed and the extent as requested for in the said çplicstion at Annexure—O be rectified. The second respondent gave one mote application on 4—2—1993 at Znnexure—E to the effect that in respect of lends covered by the said decision of the Land Tribunal dated 7—9—1916,a survey 9— r F n3a.s has been conducted end that as per the said survey, certain rectification needs ta be done in the matter of extent of certain survey numbers. She listed therein survey numbers and the extent of each survey number as specified in the original order dated 1—9—1916 and the change required in respect of the extent of each of the 6a survey numbers. By the impugned order, the Tribunal opined that on perusal of records relating to conftrment of occupancy rights leading to the psssing of the order dated 1—9—1916 and after comparing it with the survey report, it i*ound that the land registered in the name of the second respondent as per the order ef 1—9.1916 is different from the land that is actually in possession and enjoyment of the second respondent as found in the survey report. The Land Tribunal,by the impugned order, therefore, proceeds to hold that the earlier order dated 1—9—1916 is recalled and that a fresh order of confErment of occupancy rights is done in respect of survey numbers and to the extent as specified in respect of each of the said survey numbers as listed in the said order at• AnnexureeA dated 11—2—1993. It is this AnnexureA that is called in question in this writ petition. e4e 2. First of all, whether such request could have been legally entertained is a question that the Tribunal ought to have considered. Secondly, even if the Tribunal was permitted in law to do so, the Tribunal could not have proceeded to recall the erlin orcer and to pass a freeh order conftring occupancy rights in respect of lands that are actually in possession and enjoyment ef the second respondent as per the survey report, without so much as notice to the sand oi.ri ,rtciless an enquiry in that regard. The impugned order at Anrexure-A would show that the ether side had had no opportunity of being heard at all. 3. Petition is allowed. Impugned order at AnnezureaA is quashcf. ratter Is remitted to the L iii Tribunal for fresh consideration of the request of the second respondent, and, it would be op s to tie petitioner herein to urge the maantainbbility of such request at alalao, ii additio’ ‘ av’ g his say ci’ the serit% of the cece. The Land Tribunal shall take up the matter after due notice to beth sides. Al questions ‘re left open to be urged by both parties before the Tribunal. S S /e bDGE