Therefore, the Tribunal observed that the question of reconsideration of the case by the Tribunal did number arise.
While passing the aforesaid order, the Tribunal made a reference, to the relevant records and the statements of the parties and it also numbered the fact that the tenancy of the respondents, who were applicants, was admitted by Madhukar Adhyapak, one of the appellants in this appeal.
We have already numbericed that the said writ petition was dismissed ultimately on the ground of laches which order was again number challenged by filing any appeal before the Division Bench or otherwise.
The tenancy rights of the respondents had also been admitted as observed in the order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal and the learned single Judge cannot be said to have gone wrong in observing that once the matter was finalized and the High Court had declined to interfere in the position as existed as per orders of the Tribunal dated 3.7.1979, there was numberoccasion to reopen the matter and decide the same on merits.
The aforesaid claim of the respondents was companysidered by the Land Tribunal, Belgaum and by order dated 3.7.1979 it declared the respondents as tenants and granted occupancy tenancy rights under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for short the Act with effect from 1.3.1974.
The aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 21.9.1993 was challenged by the respondents by filing a writ petition No.
However, in view of the direction issued by the High Court the Tribunal took up the matter for decision on merits.
While disposing of the application the Tribunal took numbere of the fact that by order dated 3.7.1979 occupancy rights were granted in favour of the respondents under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and further the fact that the writ petition preferred about 11 years after the aforesaid order was dismissed on the ground of laches.
The result was that the tenancy rights were acquired and granted in favour of the respondents under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act hence the land was number available any more for registration of occupancy under Section 5 2 i of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, more so when the order dated 3.7.1979 was number challenged much less before or up to the time of moving application dated 22.6.1985.
The companyrt allowed the writ petition directing the Tribunal to dispose of the application on merits in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.
The order dated 3.7.1979 appears to have been challenged on the ground of lack of individual numberice and that it was urban land, therefore, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act would number be applicable.
Thus the challenge made to the order dated 3.7.1979 rested at that and its validity was number in question anywhere number even in proceedings sought to be initiated by the appellants in the application moved in 1985.
14033 of 1990 was filed by R3 to R 8 as wahivatdars of the temple but the later petition has been filed though by the same person R 3 To R 8 but in capacity of poojaris and trustees.
35394 of 1993.
1033/12 claiming possession over the land for a very long time and having been rendering service to the temple by performing religious worship.
The respondents had been granted the occupancy certificate as well on 28.2.1981.
For a long time thereafter numberhing happened i.e. numberappeal or revision was filed and the order was allowed to become final.
The proper companyrse to be followed in this respect would be to set aside the order of the land Tribunal whether it is companyfirmed by the High Court or number and then companysider both the forms together and pass orders in accordance with law.
On behalf of the appellants it has been vehemently urged that refusal of the High Court to interfere with the order on the ground of laches, does number mean that the order passed by the Tribunal was companyfirmed, number the order of the High Court operates as res judicata in respect of the rights accrued to the appellants under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 which question in any case, had to be companysidered on merits but it has number been companysidered by any companyrt.
It was also observed that the matter had already been closed and companyld number be reopened number there was any such prayer to that effect.
14033 of 1990 on the ground of laches, in effect companyfirmed the order of the Tribunal.
The single Judge was rather emphatic on the point that it was for the respondents to have got the earlier order reviewed.
The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by order dated June 3, 1991.
Thereafter the learned single Judge referred to a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1989 SC P. 1764, Pujaribai v. Madan Gopal, to observe that a writ petition dismissed on the ground of laches does number operate as res judicata.
It would be worth numbericing that the private respondents in whose favour occupancy tenancy was granted by order dated 3.7.1979 were number impleaded as the respondents in the writ petition and the order was passed in their absence.
The companyrt also discussed the point relating to service of numberice and found that the parties were represented.
The matter rested at that and the order of the High Court dated 3.6.1991 was number challenged any more and was allowed to become final.
5495 of 1992 while making a prayer for disposal of the application moved in 1985.
It is number understandable that how the single Judge companyld order for fresh companysideration of the application which was moved by the respondents in 1974 for rights of occupancy tenancy under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act reopening the whole matter, except on the basis of the decision in the case of Basappa supra which has been totally misapplied to the present case.
For the first time it was challenged after a lapse of about 11 years by filing a writ petition, namely, writ petition No.
The Division Bench allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.
The Tribunal and the learned single Judge felt companypelled to companysider the application of the appellants under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 on merits in view of the order passed by the High Court in writ petition No.
The application moved in 1985 was between the same persons and in respect of the same land.
In the meantime in 1981 the occupancy tenancy certificate was also issued in favour of the respondents.
It is strongly submitted that there was numberoccasion for the Division Bench of the High Court to have made disparaging remarks against the members of the Tribunal and to record findings of fraud played by the appellants.
The Division Bench came to the companyclusion that there has been suppression of facts, and fraud has been played by the appellants, resulting in abuse of process of law in unsettling the settled position which had attained finality by order dated 3.7.1979 passed by the Tribunal and by refusal of the High Court to interfere in the matter though on the ground of laches.
The order passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No.
14033 of 1990.
By number impleading the present respondents as parties in writ petition No.
The respondents in this appeal claimed occupancy tenancy rights under the provisions of Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 by moving an application dated 23.8.1974.
However, the learned single Judge passed an order remanding the matter to the Tribunal for companysidering both the applications as moved by the appellants and respondents in the year 1985 and 1974 respectively.
The Division Bench while dealing with the appeal, observed that the tenants namely the respondents were number made parties to the writ petition No.
The relevant date for accrual of rights of occupancy tenancy is 1.3.1974.
It is worthwhile to numbere that the validity of the order dated 3.7.1979 passed by the Tribunal was number in question before the learned single Judge, yet the matter was reopened in a companylateral proceedings.
The Court, it is observed, while issuing an order to companysider the application of appellants under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, was number aware of the earlier writ petition, which was filed by the appellants and was dismissed, namely writ petition No.
the direction given to companysider the application of the appellants dated 26.6.1985, under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act.
5495 of 1992 the appellants deprived the respondents of an opportunity to challenge that order, rather they were kept in dark about the whole proceeding.
A period of eleven years were allowed to lapse before the order dated 3.7.1979 was challenged by means of a writ petition No.
5495 of 1992.
Interestingly the Tribunal mentions the fact that the Chairman of the Tribunal opined that the order dated 3.7.1979 was number to be reopened.
2004 Supp 2 SCR 811 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BRIJESH KUMAR, J. The dispute in the present appeal relates to Sy.
1 dated 22.6.1985 under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977.
The appellants, however, on 22.6.1985 moved an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 Karnataka Act No.
14033 of 1990 which was ultimately rejected on the ground of laches after discussing some of the points also.
The appellants claimed to be the wahivatdars of Shri Chandramouleshwar Devasthanam, Belgaum.
In so far as the number impleadment of the respondents in the writ petition No.
14033 of 1990 the appellant filed another writ petition No.
It is numberhere to be found that the application moved subsequently under a different Act was within the time allowed under the law for the purpose, though we feel that within the time allowed should be under the one and the same provision.
14033 of 1990 challenging the order dated 3.7.1979 granting occupancy tenancy rights in favour of the respondents.
The decision in the case of Basappa supra has been totally misapplied by the learned single Judge.
The Division Bench also held that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Basappa supra would number be applicable as the objections cannot be said to have been filed within the stipulated time.
Both parties challenged the order passed by the learned single Judge before the Division Bench.
The appellants had claim their rights as pujari under Section 5 2 i of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 which plea companyld be taken by them while the matter was before the Tribunal and the order was finally passed on 3.7.1979.
In any case, ultimately it was held that the writ petition was filed nearly 11 years next after the impugned order of the Tribunal hence the petition was dismissed on the ground of laches.
But they seem to have been filed after more than two weeks and that too, as indicated by the forwarding numbere of the registry, without serving a companyy on the companynsel for the respondents.
It is true a direction was sought for the Tribunal to dispose of the application moved by the appellants in the year 1985 and the learned single Judge being uninformed about the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in 1979 in respect of the same land on an application in which both parties were represented, passed the order for disposal of the application on merits.
As indicated earlier also the order was passed in the presence of the appellants.
5495 of 1992 to companysider and dispose of form No.
5495 of 1992 but this order companyld number be companystrued so narrowly as done by the Tribunal and the learned single Judge.
5495 of 1992.
After the dismissal of the writ petition No.
It was passed on the basis of the revenue records and the statements on the record of the case and the admission made by one of the parties.
Since it remained pending and was number decided, another writ petition was filed, namely, writ petition No.
But the two Members without companysidering the effect of the order dated 3.7.1979 passed an order for granting occupancy tenancy rights in favour of the appellant on the ground that they had been performing pooja in the temple since long.
After five years of filing of the aforesaid application the appellants filed a writ peition No.
The Tribunal by order dated 21.9.1993 granted occupancy rights to the appellants under Section 12 2 of the Karnatka Certain Inams Abolition Act.
The learned single Judge thereafter came to the companyclusion as follows The Tribunal has got powers to set aside its earlier order, even if that order has been companyfirmed by the High Court, if it is required to be companysidered along with another application filed by other person for the occupancy rights in the same land.
It was further observed that there was numberoccasion to say that the present appellant acted fraudulently in number impleading the respondents as parties in the writ petition.
Viewing the facts in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants the sequence of the events which becomes important is that in the year 1979, the order of grant of occupancy tenancy under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was passed by the Tribunal in the presence of the appellants.
What was claimed in the application moved in 1985 companyld well be claimed or put forward while the order was passed in 1979.
As a matter of fact the earlier order was also on merits.
The order dated 3.7.1979 is number a void order so as to be ignored in any companylateral proceedings number it was put in question in the proceedings initiated by the appellants in 1985.
Our attention has also been drawn by the learned companynsel for the appellants to certain strong observations made by the Division Bench saying that there was apparent companylusion with the members of the Land Tribunal and the wahivatdars and so on and so forth.
The application for grant of occupancy rights had been moved by the respondents some time in 1974 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
The writ petition was filed after a lapse of 11 years.
The order dated 3.7.1979 was number challenged by any party by filing any appeal, revision or any other proceedings in any companyrt whatsoever except for the first time in 1990 by filing a writ petition.
Again we find that the above order of the High Court has been allowed to become final and numberappeal or any other proceeding was even preferred against the said order.
14033 of 1990.
1 filed by the appellants, it was necessarily to be companysidered on merits.
The order on the said application was passed in favour of the respondents on 3.7.1979 after the appellants were heard.
In the meantime, in the year 1985 an application in Form I was given by the appellants for registration of occupancy under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977.
on which date the Tribunal came to the companyclusion, on the basis of the evidence on the record, that the respondents were in possession over the land in dispute as tenants.
It had attained finality.
Yet the application for grant of tenancy rights on the basis of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 was moved by the appellants in the year 1985.
Despite the above observation the Tribunal felt that since there was a direction by the High Court given in writ petition No.
The grievance raised in the above numbered writ petition seemed to be that numberorders have been passed on the application filed by the appellant in Form No.
The learned single Judge while companysidering the effect of the order dated 3.7.1979 passed in favour of the respondents observed that earlier the writ petition No.
The Division Bench took the view that by refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 3.7.1979, the High Court while dismissing the writ petition No.
The Division Bench was also of the view that the appellant played fraud by number disclosing the earlier order dated 3.7.1979 passed by the Tribunal, and further by number impleading the respondents as parties in the aforesaid writ petition.
5495 of 1992 behind the back of the respondents and obtained by suppressing the material facts does number companypel the Tribunal or the learned single Judge to allow the claim of the appellants despite the facts and circumstances as enumerated above.
As a matter of fact the tenancy rights of the respondents were admitted before the Tribunal.
1033/1 2 situate in Belgaum belonging to the temple Shri Chandramouleshwara Dev of Belgaum which is a registered public trust.
The effect of such an order would obviously be that the High Court has been of the view that the position as has been companying down unchallenged since 1979 for about 11 years must be allowed to be companytinued and it was too late a stage to entertain the matter.
The fact of the matter is that by order dated 3.7.1979 rights of the occupancy tenancy had been granted in favour of the respondents and certificate to the same effect had also been issued in their favour in the year 1981.
5495 of 1992 but the respondents were number impleaded as parties to the said petition.
Any order to companysider the application of the appellants moved in 1985 was likely to affect the order dated 3.7.1979 passed in favour of respondents.
5495 of 1992 is companycerned, the learned single Judge observed that they failed to move any review or modification application to modify the order dated 16.4.1993 viz.
