Karnataka High Court
Vijaya Bank, By Its Chief Manager vs The Secretary To The Government Of ... on 20 June, 2007
Equivalent citations: ILR2008KAR1481, 2008 (3) AIR KAR R 117
Author: K. Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K. Sreedhar Rao, Subhash B. Adi
JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The deceased respondent No. 4 made an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing TS. No. 832 measuring 2 acres 11 guntas situate in Boolur Village, Mangalore City. According to the appellant, Boolur is a part of Mangalore City.
2. The appellant aggrieved by the grant filed W.P. No. 2499/1997. The learned Single Judge found that the impugned order of the Tribunal was not signed by all the members as required under Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules thus set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh enquiry in accordance with law.
3. The L.Rs of respondent No. 4 filed a Review Petition. The learned Single Judge has found that two members have indeed not signed the order, but it is only a technical lapse not going to the root of the matter. The learned Single Judge also finds that, proceeding in question are of the year 1975 and after lapse of 32 years the challenge is made. Incidentally, writ petition of the appellant is dismissed.
4. After carefully going through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in review and the provisions of Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules 1974, we are of the opinion that the failure of the members to sign the order is not merely a technical lapse but it goes to the very root of the matter. The judicial discipline requires that in amulti member judicial/quasi judicial adjudicatory body, all the adjudicators who have heard the matter should pronounce their written opinion at the same time and place and all of them should sign the order. The said salutary object of law is effectively manifested in Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. It is evident that five members have heard the matter. Only three members have signed the order and two of them have not signed the order.
5. The Chairman and one of the members who have signed the order have expressed note of dissent for grant of occupancy rights in favour of 4th respondent. Only one of the members who have signed the order has opined that occupancy rights to be granted in favour of 4th respondent. On totality of the consideration of facts and the material, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal which is not signed by the all the members who have heard the matter is a nullity and the said order cannot be considered as a valid juridical adjudication.
6. In that view, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Review, is set aside. The order passed in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge is restored. The matter stands remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.