- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13942 WP No. 3418 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.3418 OF 2016 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI IGNATIOUS MANAZES S/O LATE SRI. JOSEP MANAZES, AND SMT. CARMIN 'D' SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NEKKARJI VILLAGE, KUKKUNDUROOR POST, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V R BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KARKALA TALUK, KARKALA - 574 104 BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. SRI RAJENDRA SURVEGAR S/O LATE SRI NARAYANA SURVEGAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NEKKARJI VILLAGE, KUKKUNDUROOR POST, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADV. FOR R2) Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13942 WP No. 3418 of 2016 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP I.E., THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 LAND TRIBUNAL IN TRL NO.867/1974-75 DTD:26.12.2012 AND ALLOW THE FORM NUMBER 7 FILLED BY THE PETITIONERS MOTHER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The Land Tribunal by order dated 29.08.1980 conferred occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. However, this order was challenged by the landlord. 2. The Land Tribunal in this order had also not granted two survey numbers, as a consequence of which, W.P. No.5285 of 1981 has been preferred before this Court by the tenant. 3. This Court, by an order dated 05.06.1984, allowed the writ petition on the ground that the conclusion of the Land Tribunal in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/8 measuring 00-15 cents and 3/6 measuring 01 acre *48 cents were not based on any evidence or *corrected vide Court Order dated 24.06.2025 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13942 WP No. 3418 of 2016 on any discussion. This Court accordingly remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 4. On remand, the Tribunal has once again proceeded to reject the claim made by the tenant in respect of Sy.Nos.3/8 and 3/6 by giving the following reasons: "CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ «ªÁ¢vÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À.£ÀA§æ 3/8 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3/6 ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÁ®UÉÃt aÃnAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÉA§ÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ CfðzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß C¢¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ C©¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀqÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DzÀgÉ ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁzÀ 1) ¹.C£ÀAzÀ 2) ªÀÄtÂgÁd ±ÉnÖ 3) UÀt¥Àw gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä C©¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀÄvÁÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wæð£ÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄ vÀ¤SÉUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀgÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ zÁR¯É §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀgÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ zÁR¯É ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁPÀëöåUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀĪÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ F »AgÀ ¤Ãr wÃ¥ÀÄð ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV EgÀĪÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ, DzÀÝjAzÀ »A¢£À ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ wÃ¥Àð£Éßà M¦à DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV C©¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. §ºÀĪÀÄvÀzÀ £É¯ÉAiÀÄ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13942 WP No. 3418 of 2016 5. As could be seen from the above, there is absolutely no reason forthcoming as to why the tenant was not entitled for being conferred with the occupancy rights. There is no reasoning furnished by the members of the Land Tribunal who opposed the opinion of the Assistant Commissioner, who was in favor of conferring occupancy rights. 6. In my view, the members of the Land Tribunal could not have stated that the earlier order passed by it was just and proper and there was no need to pass a fresh order, in the light of the order passed by this Court while remanding the order. 7. Once this Court passed an order setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal holding that it had been passed without discussing the evidence or without any discussion of any kind, the Land Tribunal could not have reiterated the very same order. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Land - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13942 WP No. 3418 of 2016 Tribunal with a specific direction that it shall consider the claim of the petitioner on merits and give reasons for either the grant or rejection of Form No.7. 9. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 11. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57