Land Tribunal orders not signed by all members who heard the case are void under Rule 17(8.

The petitioners claimed through their ancestors, including Sri Khemu, who had applied in Form No. 7 for occupancy rights over two parcels of land in Ukkali Village. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights on 13 May 1976, but those orders bore only one member’s signature. In 1982, the Tribunal passed fresh orders addressing the defect; the High Court set those orders aside in 1985, holding that the Tribunal had no power to review its earlier orders.

In 2019, the Tahsildar directed that respondent No. 5’s name be entered in the revenue records. The Assistant Commissioner set that order aside, but the Deputy Commissioner restored it in 2023. The petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order and the Tahsildar’s order.

Whether the 1976 Land Tribunal orders granting occupancy rights remained valid despite being signed by only one member, after the later corrective orders were set aside.

Whether respondent No. 5’s name could remain in the revenue records pending adjudication of the petitioners’ Form No. 7 applications by the Land Tribunal.

Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 requires an order of the Land Tribunal to be signed by the Chairman and the other members who heard the case; compliance is not a mere technicality, and an order that fails this requirement is void ab initio.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Shri Abdulsattar through his LRs v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.A. No. 100221 of 2023, which applied that rule.

The Court also noted the prior High Court ruling that the Tribunal could not review its earlier orders.

Under Sections 136(2) and 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively dealt with the revenue-record proceedings.

Revenue entries pending adjudication do not determine the parties’ substantive claims to occupancy rights.

The 1976 orders were signed by only one member, contrary to Rule 17(8); accordingly, they could not be treated as valid orders granting occupancy rights. Setting aside the 1982 corrective orders for want of review power did not validate the defective 1976 orders.

Because the petitioners’ Form No. 7 claims therefore remained to be adjudicated, they could not rely on the asserted occupancy rights or tenancy to prevent respondent No. 5’s name from remaining in the revenue records in the meantime. The Land Tribunal’s eventual decision would govern the parties’ claims, while the revenue entries would not prejudice that determination.

It directed the jurisdictional Land Tribunal to decide the petitioners’ Form No. 7 applications concerning Survey Nos. 779/1 and 769/1 in accordance with law, and directed the State to constitute the Tribunal if it was not functional.

The petitioners and respondent No. 5 were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession until the Tribunal decides the applications.