ORDER GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS AND TO CONSIDER RIVAL CLAIMS-AVAILABLE. – HELD — Where the High Court had quashed an order of Land Tribunal refusing to consider application seeking occupancy rights by the tenants and remitted the matter to the tribunal for fresh of consideration of the claims of the tenants as well as the petitioner, the tribunal upon reconsideration modified its earlier order. The High Court, relying upon its decision in held that the tribunal has the power to revoke its earlier orders granting occupancy rights and to consider rival claims.
ORDER
Gopala Gowda, J.
1. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy.No. 484 measuring 9-00 acres situated in Amalapur village in Hospet Taluk. By an order dated 18.8.1981 occupancy rights was granted in favour of the petitioner for 9-00 acres of land. By the impugned order at Annexure-B dated 29.6.2002, the order dated 18.8.1981 is modified and occupancy right is granted to the petitioner only for 4-00 acres and the remaining 5-00 acres is granted to respondents 1 to 3 jointly. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned order.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 also filed application-seeking registration of occupancy rights of the same land to an extent of 5-00 acres. Their claim was rejected by the land tribunal by an order-dated 11.9.1986. The same was challenged in R.A.No. 192/87, which was later numbered as W.P.No. 30270/98. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 7.7.1999 quashing the Order dated 11.9.1986 of the land tribunal and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal of the applications of the petitioner herein and respondents 1 and 2. Accordingly, the impugned order is passed by the land tribunal. The petitioner was also a party to the aforesaid Writ Petition. Hence, the order passed therein, which has become final, is binding on the petitioner,
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 18.8.1981 granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner for 9-00 acres of land was not the subject matter before the Appellate Authority or in the Writ Petition and therefore the Land Tribunal committed an error by modifying the order dated – 18.8.1981 and reducing the extent from 9-00 acres to 4-00 acres. This contention is rebutted by the learned Counsel for the respondents placing reliance upon the decision reported in MAHAVEER CHAMBANNA KALLIMANI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
. In that decision it is held that the Land Tribunal has power to revoke its earlier order granting occupancy rights and to consider the rival claims. In view of the law laid down in the said decision, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner fails.
4. In view of the direction issued to the Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 afresh, in which proceedings the petitioner was a party and he was represented by his Counsel the tribunal had no option but to comply with the said direction. The cubbing of the claim of the petitioner and the rival claimants is in accordance with the direction of this Court. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with its action.
5. The Land Tribunal has elaborately considered the claims of the parties and passed the impugned order by assigning valid and cogent reasons. It is a well-considered order considering all aspects of the case in a proper perspective. The grant of occupancy rights in the land in question is a equitable order as 9-00 acres is granted for three applicants, 3-00 acres, 5-00 acres and 4-00 acres respectively. Justice has been done to the parties and hence no interference is warranted.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.