DATTATREYA AND ORS. versus MAHAVEER AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 31-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DATTATREYA AND ORS. 
V. 
MAHA VEER AND ORS. 
MAY 31, 2004 
[BRJJESHKUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; Section 45/Karnataka Certain 
lnams Abolition Act, 1977; Section 5 : 
A 
B 
Rights of occupancy tenancy over disputed land-Claim of-Land C 
Tribunal granted rights in favour of applicant/respondents-However, on 
the application of another person/appellant, Tribunal also granted him the 
rights on the same land-Challenged by the respondents-Remanded to the 
Tribunal by Single Judge of the High Court for consideration of the 
Applications of both appellants and respondents afresh-Challenged by D 
both the parties-Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of 
the respondents and rejected the other-On appeal, Held : since tenancy 
rights were acquired and granted in favour of respondents under the 
provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, in terms of the earlier 
order of the Tribunal, the same land was not available any more for E 
registration of occupancy under the provisions of the 1977 Act-Since 
earlier Order of the Tribunal was neither void nor challenged by the 
appellants, it cannot be ignored in a collateral proceeding-Hence 
Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the order of the Single 
Judge. 
Respondents filed an application before the Land Tribunal claiming 
occupancy tenancy rights in respect of the land in dispute belonging 
to a temple. The Tribunal granted them rights in terms of provisions 
F 
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Later, some other persons, 
appellants moved applications under the provisions of the Karnataka G 
Certain Inams Abolition Act for registering them as occupants over the 
same land and subsequently, they also filed a writ petition challenging 
the Tribunal's Order. The writ petition was dismissed by the High 
Court. Appellants filed another writ petition, and the High Court 
directing the Tribunal to dispose of the pending application on merits. H 
811 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in favour of the appellants, but 
observed that in view of its earlier order, occupancy rights which were 
granted in favour oft he respondents stood confirmed as not challenged. 
Respondents challenged the order of the Tribunal. Single Judge of the 
High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration 
B of the applications moved earlier by both the parties. Both the parties 
challenged the order by filing cross appeals. Division Bench of the High 
Court allowed the appeal of the respondents and dismissed the other. 
Hence the present appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The appellants cannot be allowed to claim any 
bonafides in not impleading the respondents as parties in the writ 
petition or about non-disclosure of the earlier order of the Tribunal 
before High Court in respect of the same land knowingly on the ground 
D that it was not necessary to disclose it. They knew well that if any order 
is passed in their favour the respondents would be the affected persons. 
The respondents were deprived from raising this point before the 
Single Judge. The conduct of the appellants had been far from being 
fair if not fraudulent. It was a deliberate suppression of material fact 
which caused prejudice to the respondents. Fair play is the basic rule 
E to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. [821-E-F-GJ 
2.1. The appellants claimed their rights as pujari by filing an 
application under Section 5(2)(i) of the Karnataka Central lnams 
Abolition Act, 1977 which plea could have been taken by then: while 
F the matter was before the Tribunal and before the order was finally 
passed. Nothing has been indicated as to why it could not be done. As 
a matter of fact the tenancy rights of the respondents were admitted 
before the Tribun·al. The Tribunal and the Single Judge of the High 
Court have rightly observed that once the matter was finalized and the 
G 
High Court had declined to interfere in the position as existed in terms 
of the orders of the Tribunal, there was no occasion to reopen the 
matter and decide the same on merits. As a matter of fact the earlier 
order was also on merits. 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, and the matter was allowed to attain 
H finality. (822-A-B-C-D( 
DATTATREYAv.MAHAVEER 
813 
2.2. The Courts below felt co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.