1. The petitioner, who is the owner of many lands, in regards to portions of which Respondents 2 to 32 have succeeded before the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura, in securing occupancy rights in favour of themselves, has challenged the order so granting occupancy rights. That order is dated 6-11-1975 and has been passed by the Land Tribunal in 31 proceedings.
2. The true copy of the order is at Exhibit 'B' : to read the order at Exhibit 'B', leads to a strange experience. The name of the applicant and the land for which he has applied is mentioned in the first column and as against that, it is narrated that his case was considered and his claim was granted. In view of this state of affairs, the learned counsel appearing on both the sides fairly filed a Joint Memo stating that the order in question is not a speaking order and the law requires that it should be quashed.
3. Apart from the aforementioned fact which makes the order liable to be quashed, it is to be observed that the Tribunal was Wrong in clubbing all the 31 cases. In various decisions it is laid down by this Court that if more than one person claim occupancy rights to the very same area and very same land, such claims should be clubbed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal should proceed to dispose of the claims by passing a common order. It is not the law that if the landlord is common in many applications, though the lands are different and the claimants are different, all those applications should be clubbed and common order should be passed. This is another lacuna in the proceedings of the Tribunal.
4. One more lacuna worthwhile noticing is that the Tribunal has ignored the mandatory procedure prescribed by Section 48-A(5) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in disposing of the case's.
5. In view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that the learned counsel are justified in filing the Joint Memo.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to hold a fresh enquiry in all the 31 applications bearing in mind the observations made in the body of the order and then proceed to dispose of the claims of the different claimants according to law.
No order as to costs.
7. Writ petition allowed.