ORDER
Patil, J.
1. The petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 13.11.2002 in No. KLR SR 32/28 (Annexure-D) passed by the 1st respondent. Further, they sought a direction directing the 1st respondent to club Form No. 7A filed by the petitioners under Section 77A of the Act (Ann.A) along with the instant proceedings in No. KLR. SR. 32/28 and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, on the basis of the application filed by the Rule 2(a) to (h) before the land Tribunal for deleting their names from the proceedings initiated on the basis of Form No. 7 filed by the respective tenants in respect of land in Sy. No. 66 measuring 24 acres 9 guntas situated at Thirtha village of Kundagol Taluk, Dharwad District on the ground that the petitioners are not a necessary party to the said proceedings and they have not filed Form No. 7. The land Tribunal accepted the statement made by the contesting respondents and held that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the said proceeding by its order dated 13.11.2003. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the petitioners have presented this Writ Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the parties in the proceedings. He has pointed out that from impugned order passed by the land Tribunal, it is clear that the petitioners' father's name was found at SI. No. 2. The land Tribunal passed the order holding that he is not a necessary party to the said proceeding. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act. To substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance on Sub-clause 2 of Section 48A. Under the said provisions the petitioners are entitled to be heard in the matter before considering the request of the contesting respondent for grant of occupancy rights. Further he placed reliance on the name found in col. No. 12(2) of the ROR for the agricultural years 1967-68 to 1996-97. In the ROR the petitioners' father's name is shown and mode of cultivation is shown as '3' which indicates as a tenant. When these materials are in favour of the petitioners, the Tribunal is not justified in passing the impugned order deleting the name of the petitioners from the pending proceedings on its file. Further he submitted that, in view of non filing of Form No. 7 in pursuance to amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the petitioners have filed Form No. 7A before the competent authority for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands cultivated by the petitioners' father and the said application was pending consideration. Therefore, he sought appropriate directions may be issued to the Tribunal to club the applications filed by the petitioners' father in Form No. 7A and the application filed by the contesting respondent No. 2 and to proceed in accordance with law.
4. Per contra, the learned Govt. Advocate for 1st respondent vehemently submitted that the second prayer sought by the petitioners is not permissible in view of the fact that alleged Form No. 7A filed by the petitioner is to be considered by the competent authority authorised by the Government. Hence, the question of clubbing Form No. 7A filed by the petitioners and form No. 7 filed by the contesting respondent does not arise. When there is no provision to club the applications, seeking such a prayer by the petitioners is not maintainable and it is liable to be rejected.
5. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the Writ Petition is liable to the rejected on the ground that the land tribunal has rightly passed the order after considering the fact that the petitioners' father has not filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights and as such, he is not a necessary party. Further he has pointed out that in the earlier round of litigation the petitioner's father was not a party before this Court. Therefore the petitioners are not necessary parties. The Tribunal accepted the said contention of 2nd respondent and passed the order which is in accordance with law. The land Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality at the time of passing the impugned order. Therefore, he prayed that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners' father is arrayed as one of the applicant before the land Tribunal and his name was notified at serial no. 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the 2nd respondent has filed application raising objection that the deceased petitioners' father is not entitled to participate in the said proceedings as he has not filed Form No. 7 and the question of continuing his name in the proceedings is not necessary. The land Tribunal after considering the submission of the 2nd respondent has held that petitioners' father has not filed Form No. 7 as such, he is not entitled to continue in the said proceedings and uphold the submission of the 2nd respondent by its order dated 13.11.2002 stating that the question of permitting the LRs of deceased Nimbappa s/o Fakirappa Madar to come on record does not arise. In my considered view, the reasoning given by the land Tribunal is contrary to Sub-clause 2 of Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. As per sub clause 2 of Section 48A -it is the duty of the land Tribunal to hear all the persons who are interested in the land by calling upon them to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. Further, it is clear from the said provision that, 'the Tribunal shall also issue individual notices to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others as may appear to it to be interested in the land. When there is a clear provision enunciated under the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act, it is the duty cast on the land Tribunal to issue notices to the persons whose names are shown in the records. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners' father's name is found for the agricultural years 67-68 to 96-97 in col. No. 12(2) mode of cultivation is shown '3' and the extent is shown as 11 acres 24 guntas. If that is the case, the land Tribunal is bound to issue notice and to hear the LRs of the deceased in the said proceedings and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Rules after conducting enquiry as enunciated under Rule 17 of the Reforms Rules r/w 34 of the Land Revenue Act. But in the instant case, the land tribunal instead of conducting enquiry as required under law, only on the basis of objection raised by the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order which is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act, as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. In so far as 2nd prayer, is concerned, the petitioners are not entitled to seek such a prayer to club Form No. 7A filed by the petitioner's father under Section 77A of the Amended Land Reforms Act, as the competent authority for considering the Form No. 7A filed by the petitioner's father is the authorised Officer of the Government. Therefore the question of issuing direction to the land Tribunal does not arise, as the Authorities considering Form No. 7 and 7A are entirely different and it is not permissible to issue such a direction. Therefore, the second prayer sought by the petitioners cannot be granted. Accordingly, the second prayer is rejected.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petitions is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.11.2002 in No. KLR SR 32/28 (Annexure -D) passed by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside.
The matter stands remitted back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration with the following direction:
(i) The 1st respondent herein is directed to permit the petitioners to come on record as LRs of Nimbappa s/o Fakirappa Madar as provided under Sub-clause 2 of Section 48A of the Land Reforms Act and to pass orders strictly in accordance with relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and Rules, after giving opportunity to the petitioners and contesting respondents as expeditiously as possible giving top priority in the pending cases.