Karnataka HC Sets Aside Tribunal’s Later Order on Occupancy Claim for Plot Omitted From Form 7, After 2002 High Court Ruling

Respondent No. 2 sought occupancy rights by filing Form No. 7 for eight items of land, but the application did not include land in Sy. No. 107/4, Peraje Village.

In 1994, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim concerning Sy. No. 107/4, and the High Court confirmed that decision in W.P. No. 17209/2002 on 11 September 2002.

On 17 September 2016, the Tribunal made the order challenged in this petition. The petitioner sought its quashing on the ground that it concerned land for which no Form No. 7 had been filed and for which the earlier High Court decision had attained finality.

The Court identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis of its decision.

It applied the principle that a prior decision of the High Court, once final, must be respected by the Land Tribunal; the Tribunal cannot make an order inconsistent with that decision.

It also treated the scope of the occupancy-rights application as defined by the lands actually listed in Form No. 7.

On examining Form No. 7, the Court found that it listed eight items but did not include Sy. No. 107/4.

The Court also noted that the Tribunal had rejected the claim concerning that survey number in 1994 and that the rejection had been confirmed by the High Court in 2002.

Because that decision had attained finality, the Tribunal committed a serious error by making the impugned order without taking it into account.

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Land Tribunal’s order dated 17 September 2016.