K. Ramanna, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10/5/1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Hukeri in case No.TNC/SR.No. 3487 and in No.TNC/SR.No. 2785 dated 10/5/1977 as per Annexure-A and B' in favour of one Bhima Dungappa Sukanahalli And Nagappa Satyappa, granting occupancy rights in their favour in respect of land SY. No. 127/9 A measuring 1 acre 15 guntas and land bearing No.l27/9B measuring 2 acres respectively. Both the lands are in Ankale of Hukeri Taluk.
2. The main grounds urged by the petitioner No. 1 andL.Rs of petitioner No. 2 are that, they have filed Form No. 1 for grant of occupancy rights in their favour on 26/6/1983 as per Annexure-C in respect of the aforesaid lands as tenants when Inam Abolition Act 1977 was in force. But the respondents-4 to 7 filed Form No. 7 in the year 1974 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land of Shree Swami Jagadguru Shankaracharya Math as tenants. But the tribunal without verifying the records granted occupancy rights in favour of Bhima Dungappa Sukanahalli and Nagappa Satyappa as per Annexure-A and B. Since the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the said lands, they have invested huge amounts to dig the bore well and have made it fit for cultivation. Therefore, the petitioners could not be parties before the Tribunal along with other applications filed by Respondents-4 to 7. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have clubbed the applications Form No. 7 filed by other applicants like the petitioners and after clubbing all the applications ought to have passed the order. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-A and B are liable to be quashed.
3. Initially the petitioners herein filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No. 18852/83 challenging the order dated 10/5/1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Hukeri i.e., respondent No. 1 separately as per Annexure-A and B. When the said writ petition was pending an amendment was brought to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was constituted, therefore, the writ petition was transferred to the Appellate Authority, Belgaum and registered ;the appeal as R. A.No. 653/86 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum. Consequently, additional Appellate Authority was constituted therefore, the said appeal was transferred to the Additional Appellate Authority which was renumbered as R.A.No. 342/87. When the said appeal was pending before the Additional Appellate Authority, again an amendment was brought to the Land Reforms Act, abolishing the Appellate ate Authority. Therefore the petitioner filed Civil Petition before this Court in CP.No. 5534/ 1991 to convert appeal into writ petition. Accordingly the said Civil Petition was allowed and it was converted into writ petition.
4. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7 and learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondents-1 and 2.
5. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lands being Devasthana Inam lands governed by the provisions of Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act 1977, as such Form No. 7 filed by Respondents-4 to 7 was not maintainable. The Tribunal ought to have rejected the application as the respondents-4 to 7 who are the tenants and the petitioners are cultivating the said land as tenants of the mutt land. Therefore, the order granting occupancy rights in favour of Bhima Dungappa Sukanahalli and Nagappa Satyappa is illegal and incorrect. It is contended that the record of rights to the said two items of the lands discloses that actually the petitioner-No. 1 and L. Rs of Petitioner No. 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Therefore, even if the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Respondent-4 the father of Respondents-5 to 7 in the year 1977, when the petitioner filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights, the impugned orders at Annexures-' A and B' ought not to have been passed. Therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the Land Tribunal with a direction to club the applications filed by Respondent No. 4 and deceased Tukaram Ghatage and late Nagappa father of Respondents-5 to 7 and dispose of in accordance with law. In support of the contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a (Division Bench) decision reported in Basappa Gurusangappaa v. Land TribunalL, BAD AMI and Ors. 1979 (2) KLJ 340 wherein, it has been held that Section 48A: later rival application within time. Further it has held that even if one of the rival applicants had filed his application earlier and the Tribunal had granted him occupancy right in respect of the land and subsequently another applicant makes an application within the time limit provided by Section 48 A in respect of the same land, the Tribunal is bound to consider the later application by setting aside its earlier order and consider both the rival applications'.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7 submits that the petitioners herein purchased 1/3 share in the land Sy.No.l27-9AandB in the year 1982, therefore, they cannot file Form No. 7 when they have already purchased 1/3 share in the said land from Nagappa for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- Mutation entry No. 2578 dated 24/12/1982 clearly shows both petitioner No. 1 and deceased petitioner No. 2 purchased 1/3 share out of Sy. No. 127/9A from Nagappa father of Respondents-5 to 7, therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
7. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the tenants filed Form No. 7 in the year 1974 and at that time petitioners herein did not purchase the land and they had purchased in the year 1982, therefore their application is not before the Land Tribunal. The order passed by the Land Tribunal as per Annexure-A and B is in accordance with law. Therefore the present application filed by the petitioners which is numbered as DIA/SR-3496 as per Annexure-C which is still pending, cannot be a ground to set aside the earlier orders. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have carefully examined the material placed on record. No doubt that respondent No. 4 deceased Nagappa filed Form No. 7 in the year 1974 and after considering the material, the Tribunal granted Occupancy Rights on 10/1/1977 without clubbing the application Form No. 7 and that the petitioners herein filed Form No. 7 when the Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act came into force and therefore they have filed Form No. 1 on 26/6/1983. The petitioners purchased l/3rd land from the share of Nagappa in the year 1982. But in view of grant of occupancy rights in favour of deceased Respondent No. 4 father of Respondent No. 5 to 7, there is likelihood of petitioners leasing their rights of tenancy. The entries in the record of rights from the year 1982 prima facie shows that they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the land. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioners are in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land and the petitioners filed Form No. 1 in 1983. Even if the lands were granted in favour of Respondent No. 4 deceased Nagappa they are liable to be set aside in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Basappa Gurusangappaa v. Land Tribunal, Bad Amil and Ors. (Supra).
Hence, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders at Annexure-A and B passed by the Land Tribunal-1st respondent in case No.TNC/SR.No. 3487 and in No.TNC/ SR.No. 2785 dated 10/5/1977 in favour of Respondent No. 4 father of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to club the applications filed by the petitioners along with the applications filed by Bhima Dungappa Sukanahalli and deceased Nagappa father of Respondents-5 to 7 and hold de-novo enquiry and dispose of the case in accordance with law after giving them sufficient opportunity to both the parties. All other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7 are kept open.