ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the common order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk dated 22nd August, 1979 in respect of Case Nos. LRF, 1623:74-75, LRF:328:74, LRF:317:74-75 and LRF:324:74-75, insofar as it relates to registration of occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 4 to an extent of 13 guntas (Sy. No. 83), 11 guntas (Sy. No. 83), 01 acre 28 guntas and 01 acre (Sy. No. 76 and Sy. No. 83 respectively) and 21 guntas (Sy. No. 83) respectively situate at Chikkallasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk, has presented the instant writ petition.
2. The only grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the lands in Sy, Nos. 76 and .83 of Chikkallasandra, being a jodi village are classified as Government tank and out of the said survey numbers, occupancy rights to an extent of 01 acre 28 guntas (Sy. No. 76) and 03 acres 26 guntas (Sy. No. 83) have been confirmed in favour of respondents 1 to 4 when the lands in question are Government tank. When things stood thus, it appears respondents 1 to 4 have filed Form 7 for registration of occupancy rights. The said applications had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 22nd August, 1979 and the Land Tribunal clubbing the applications filed by the respondents 1 to 4 along with various other applications filed by the applicants, has passed a common order, conferring the occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 4 in respect of Sy. Nos. 76 and 83. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the petitioner-State has presented the instant writ petition.
3. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Government pleader appearing for the petitioner-State is that, the Tribunal has committed an error in not verifying the original records before registering occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 4. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the lands in question are tank bed lands and the property belongs to Government and no tenancy can be conferred on any person on the tank bed lands which are reserved for public purpose for utilization by the general public and no individual can claim the rights over the lands that are reserved for specific purpose. To substantiate the said submission, he pointed out that, as per the village map, the lands in question are tank bed lands and this aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal while conferring the occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 4. He submitted that, the Tribunal ought to have noted that, the lands in question are not agricultural lands. When the lands in question are not classified as agricultural lands, the question of entertaining the applications filed by the respondents 1 to 4 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the said lands does not arise. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated and concluded by the Tribunal is bad in law and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules.
4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State. The respondents are served and unrepresented. This matter had come up for hearing on 12th March, 2004 and after hearing for sometime, I directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the authenticated village map duly certified by the Competent Authority, index of lands and survey numbers and the survey report submitted by the concerned surveyor. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has produced all the three original records today and the concerned Special Tahsildar is also present before the Court. After careful perusal of the village map, survey report and the index of lands, it is not in dispute that, the lands in question are reserved for specific purpose as Government tank. Once it is reserved for a specific purpose, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications filed by respondents 1 to 4 for registration of occupancy rights. When the applications are filed for grant of occupancy rights in respect of kharab lands, the Tribunal ought to have looked into the original records. Without doing so, the Tribunal has taken hasty decision in passing the impugned order without going into the ground reality of the matter and without calling for the report from the surveyor or verifying the original records, that are very much available with the concerned Tahsildar, who is none other than the Secretary of the Land Tribunal. The way in which the Tribunal has proceeded and concluded the proceedings gives room to come to the conclusion that, the Tribunal has not at all applied its mind and passed the impugned order contrary to the material on record and without going into the ground reality. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner, the Tribunal has neither conducted any enquiry nor given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth its case. He submitted that, if opportunity had been given to it, the petitioner would have made available all the records that are made available before this Court and would have convinced the Land Tribunal. Therefore, in my considered view, at any stretch, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is not sustainable. Hence, it is liable to be set aside for redoing the enquiry afresh in accordance with law.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of with the following directions.-
(i) The writ petition filed by the petitioner-State is allowed.
(ii) The order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk dated 22nd August, 1979, in Case Nos. LRF. 1623:74-75, LRF:328:74, LRF:317:74-75 and LRF:324:74-75 insofar as it relates to granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 4 in respect of Sy. No. 76 measuring 01 acre 28 guntas and Sy. No. 83 measuring 03 acres 26 guntas at Chikkallasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk, is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted to the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iii) Further, the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, is hereby directed to issue notice to the Deputy Commissioner of the District and the respondents 1 to 4 and thereafter pass appropriate orders, in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules and also taking into consideration the observations made by this Court during the course of its order, as expeditiously as possible.
6. With these observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-State stands disposed of.