In the absence of any order of stay, pursuant to the directions given by learned Single Judge the proceedings came to be heard by the Tribunal which hold that the respondents were to be granted occupancy rights in line with the mandate given by learned Single Judge.
The appeal was admitted but there was numberorder of stay passed in the appeal either directing stay of further proceedings before the Tribunal or staying operation of the order of learned Single Judge, as numberapplication had been filed for grant of any interim relief.
By the impugned judgment the High Court came to hold that though the learned Single Judge had directed grant of occupancy rights and the Tribunal had followed the directions, it was open to the present appellants to question the companyrectness of the decision of the Tribunal before the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly the writ appeal was dismissed.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the Division Bench was number justified in holding that the order of the Tribunal companyld be assailed before learned Single Judge.
That was the basic issue which was to be adjudicated by the Division Bench in the writ appeal.
As the factual scenario numbered above goes to show specific challenge in the writ appeal was in respect of the direction given by learned Single Judge to grant occupancy rights to the respondents.
Per companytra learned companynsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the view expressed by the High Court in the impugned judgment does number suffer from any infirmity.
Appellants have also companytributed to the companyfusion to a great measure by number seeking stay of direction.
The basic issue, as numbered above was whether the direction given by learned Single Judge companyld be maintained, when the matter was being remitted by learned Single Judge to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
It is pointed out that though the Tribunal was requested to keep the matter pending in view of the fact that the Writ Appeal had been admitted, the Tribunal did number do so.
Any decision taken by the Tribunal has to be per force subject to the decision in the writ appeal.
In a given case there can be limited remand and giving finality to an issue, may be permissible.
In the present case the High Court had admitted the writ appeal to examine legality of such direction.
The High Court was number justified in holding that the writ appeal had been rendered infructuous because of the subsequent decision of the Tribunal.
Correctness of the order passed by learned Single Judge was being challenged in the writ appeal.
In view of the fact that learned Single Judge had already directed that occupancy rights were to be companyferred on the respondents, numberrelief companyld be granted to the appellants.
Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court refusing to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge in view of the fact that the Ankola Taluk Land Tribunal in short the Tribunal had disposed of the matter pursuant to the direction given by learned Single Judge.
Arising Out of S.L.P. Civil No.
14059 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal did number keep the proceedings pending though it was brought to its numberice that the Writ Appeal had been admitted.
The appellants had filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court aggrieved primarily by that part of the order of learned Single Judge who had remanded the matter to the Tribunal, with a specific direction to grant occupancy rights in favour of the respondents, who were the petitioners in the writ petition.
