Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. Petitioner claims to be an agricultural Laborer as defined under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'K.L.R. Act'). He made an application in terms of Section 38 of the K.L.R. Act in Form No. 2-A for registering him as the owner of 5 cents of landing Sy.No. 213/4 of Kundapur village. The Land Tribunal allowed his application by the order dated 8-9-1982 (Annexure-A), and issued a direction for registering him as the owner of the said 5 cents of land consisting of a dwelling house, In the year 1993 he wanted to avail loan from a local society by mortgaging the said property. When he approached the society for the said purpose, the officials of the Society asked him to secure R.T.C. and other documents relating to the said land. Therefore, he approached the Revenue Authorities and the Land Tribunal and came to know that the occupancy rights of the said land was granted in favour of the 4th respondent to an extent of 14 cents by an order dated 21-7-1978. Therefore, he has approached this Court calling in question the order dated 21-7-1978 (Annexure-F) on various grounds.
2. I have heard Sri Umesh A., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dayanand K.G, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 and learned H.C.GP. for Respondents 1 and 2. Though notice was served on the 3rd respondent-owner of the land, it has remained un-represented.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while considering the application of the petitioner filed under Section 38 of the K.L.R. Act, the Land Tribunal ought to have recalled its earlier order granting occupancy rights of the same land in favour of the 4th respondent. He further submits that the petitioner has made the owner of the land, the 3rd respondent, as a party to the proceedings. Public notice as required under Section 48(A)(2) of the K.L.R. Act was issued by the Land Tribunal. The 4th respondent has not appeared before the Land Tribunal in response to the public notice. He further submits that the 4th respondent was not a tenant of the land in question and that grant of occupancy right of the entire extent of 14 cents in Sy.No. 213/4 is illegal as the ownership of the said land has been granted in favour of different agricultural Laborers in accordance with Section 38 of the K.L.R. Act. Learned Counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in Basappa Gurusangappa v. Land Tribunal, 1979 (2) KLJ 370 Krishna Shetty amd Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Somwarpet and Ors., ILR 1979 KAR 1681 and Mahaveer Chambanna Kallimani and Ors. v. State Of Karnataka and Ors., : ILR1996KAR3646 in support of his contentions.
4. On the other hand, Sri Dayanand K.G., learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that there is a long delay in approaching this Court. The petitioner has not assigned satisfactory reasons for the delay. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Secondly, he submits that the order made by the Land Tribunal in favour of the 4th respondent has attained finality and that the said order cannot be recalled at this stage. It is his further submission that the occupancy right was granted in favour of the 4th respondent as per Section 48-A of the K.L.R. Act at an earlier point of time. The order made in favour of the petitioner was to register him as the owner of the land as per Section 38 of the K.L.R. Act on a subsequent date. The scope and purport of both the Sections are totally different. Therefore, the applications made by the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 under different provisions for different purposes cannot be clubbed. He further submits that the petitioner has not made the 4th respondent a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Therefore, the order made in favour of the petitioner is not binding on the 4th respondent.
5. In the light of the rival contentions of the Learned Counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration:-
i) Whether the Petitioner is guilty of laches or undue delay?
ii) Whether the 4th respondent not being the owner of the land requires to be made a party in the application filed by the petitioner under Section 38 of the Act?
iii) What is the right course to be adopted by the Land Tribunal when applications are filed by different persons in respect of a same land under Section 48-A and Section 38 of the Act and one of the application is allowed at an earlier point of time?
6. Regarding Point No. (i): It is the case of the petitioner that he was in possession of the dwelling house and site in question as an agricultural Laborer without any interference either from the 3rd respondent or from the 4th respondent. In the year 1993, when he wanted to develop the property, he approached a Local Credit Cooperative Society for raising loans and as advised by them, he approached the Revenue Authorities for securing R.T.C. extracts. Then he came to know that the occupancy right in respect of the land was granted in favour of Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, he has filed this petition challenging the impugned order. The 4th respondent has not filed any objections to the writ petition. The explanation offered for the delay is satisfactory. I am of the view that the delay in filing the writ petition requires to be condoned.
7. Regarding Point No. (ii): 'Agricultural Laborer' is defined under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the K.L.R. Act as under:-
'SECTION 2(2) : 'Agricultural Laborer' means a person whose principal means of livelihood is manual labour on land (and includes an artisan whose means of livelihood is preparation of agricultural implements;)'
8. Section 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was substituted by Act 1 of 1978, with effect from 1-1-1979. Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 38 of the Act provides for vesting in the State Government the dwelling house along with the site thereof and land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for its enjoyment situated in a village, wherein an agricultural Laborer was ordinarily residing, free of all encumbrances. It entitles the agricultural Laborer to be registered as the owner thereof. Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 38 of the Act states that the Tribunal shall hold an enquiry on the application made under this provision in the manner specified in or under Section 48-A of the Act.
9. Sub-section (2) of Section 48(A) provides for issuance of public notice to the interested persons. It states that on receipt of the application, the Tribunal shall publish the contents of the public notice in the village, in which the land is situated, calling upon the landlord and all the persons, whoever having interest in the land to appear before it on the dates specified in the notice. It further states that the Tribunal shall also issue individual notice to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others, who may appears to be interested in the land.
10. Rule 9-A(1) of the KLR Rules provides the form of application under Sub-section(1) of Section 38 to be in Form of 2-A. The said form contains different columns to be filled in by the applicant giving the description of the land, and the name of owners of the land. A perusal of the materials on record shows that the petitioner has given the particulars of Owner-Respondent No. 3 in his Form 2-A. Thus, the petitioner has complied with the statutory requirements. The Land Tribunal in the course of the Order at Annexure-A has observed that public notice was issued according to law. The 4th respondent has not appeared before the Land Tribunal in response to the public notice. It was open for the 4th respondent to appear before the Land Tribunal and contest the matter. The 4th respondent not being the owner of the land need not be included in Form No. 2A. The application of the petitioner filed under Section 38 of the Act cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-inclusion of the name of 4th respondent in Form No. 2A.
11. Regarding Point No. (iii): As noticed above, the 4th respondent was granted occupancy right to an extent of 14 cents by the order dated 21 -7-1978 which includes 5 cents of the land granted to the petitioner subsequently. In Basappa's case (Supra) and in Krishna Shetty's case (Supra) the Division Benches have held that, even if one of the rival applicants had filed his application earlier and the Tribunal had granted him occupancy right in respect of the land and subsequently another applicant makes an application within the time limit provided by Section 48-A in respect of the same land, the Tribunal is bound to consider the later application by setting aside its earlier order and consider both the rival applications.
12. In Mahaveer Chambanna Kallimani's case (Supra), one of the claimant had filed an application in Form No. 7 within the prescribed period and occupancy right was granted in his favour. Later, the contesting respondent has made an application in Form No. 1 under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act. This Court has held that though the applications are filed under two different enactments, the purpose was to grant occupancy rights in respect of a particular land and therefore, both the forms are required to be considered together and if necessary, by setting aside the earlier order granting occupancy rights.
13. In the present case, both the applications are filed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Section 44 of the Act which came into force with effect from 1-3-1974 deals with vesting of the land held by or in the possession of the tenants in the Government. Section 45 provides for registration of tenants and occupants of the lands. Section 48-A of the Act provides the procedure to be followed by the Land Tribunal while considering the applications of the tenants for grant of occupancy rights. Section 38 of the Act has come into force much later i.e. on 1-1-1979. It provides for registration of agricultural Laborer as the owner of a dwelling house along with the site thereof not belonging to him wherein he was residing when the said provision came into force. I am of the view that if applications are filed under Section 48-A as also Section 38 of the Act, in respect of the same land, both the applications are required to be considered together, if necessary by setting aside an earlier order either granting occupancy right or directing registration of an agricultural Laborer as an owner thereof. There is no other way in which the Tribunal can discharge the obligation to consider all the applications filed in time.
16. In the result, I pass the following Order:
ORDER
i) The order dated 8-9-1982 at Annexure-A directing registration of ownership of 5 cents of land in Sy.No. 213/4 of Kundapur village, in favour of the petitioner to the extent of 5 cents, is quashed.
if) The order of the Land Tribunal dated 21-7-1978 at Annexure-F, granting occupancy rights to an extent of 5 cents of land in favour of the 4th respondent, is quashed.
iii) I direct the Land Tribunal to club the application of the Petitioner and the 4th respondent and pass a common order in accordance with law.
This petition is disposed of accordingly.