ORDER
R. Gururajan, J.
1. Legal Representatives of Sri B. Bava are before this Court challenging the order dated 25.10.1978 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner late Bava was in possession and enjoyment of 5 cents of land in Survey No. 25B-1A of Battaya Koppala of Maloor village. He was residing in a farmhouse situated in the land in question for several years. Respondent No. 3, now deceased, filed an application for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No. 25B, measuring 25 cents. Respondent No. 3 claimed 5 cents of land which was in possession of the petitioner. Petitioner applied only for 5 cents along with the farmhouse which was in his possession. An application was filed before the Land Tribunal, and the Land Tribunal without issuing notice to the petitioner granted occupancy rights in favour of Respondent No. 3. The said order was challenged in this Court in Writ Petition No. 16801 of 1983. In the light of constitution of the appellate authority, proceedings were transferred to the appellate authority. Later, Appellate Authority stood abolished. A C.P. was filed and the proceedings were converted as writ petition.
3. Matter was listed before me for final hearing. At the time of hearing, my attention was invited to the pending application filed by the petitioner with regard to bringing on records the legal representatives of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. Said application was not disposed of by the appellate authority, and that therefore, the petitioner is not maintainable on the facts of this case.
4. Sri Khadar, learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that despite pending application before the appellate authority, this Court can consider the case on merits and pass appropriate orders. Per contra, the contesting respondents' counsel opposes the same.
5. After hearing, I have carefully seen the material on record.
6. It is seen that on an earlier occasion, a writ petition was filed and the same came to be transferred to the appellate authority. Appellate authority stood abolished. Thereafter, C.P. was filed. Section 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1990, says that only pending appeals can be converted as writ proceedings. It is seen that on the relevant date no appeal as such was pending before the appellate authority, and, only in the light of the death of the petitioner an I.A. was filed therein and the said I.A. could not be considered by the appellate authority.
7. Let me see as to whether a pending I.A. before the appellate authority seeking to bring the L.Rs. would provide a cause of action for the purpose of conversion of proceedings before the appellate authority as writ petition in this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Lalithamma and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (WP No. 19863 of 1991 disposed of on 3.2.1994) has ruled as under:
This proceedings stands reverted to this Court in terms of Section 17 of Act No. 18 of 1990. During pendency of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ('the Act' for short), the appeal filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed. Thereafter an application was filed for restoration of that appeal. No orders were made on that application. Inasmuch as the appeal bad been dismissed and no proceeding was pending before the Tribunal, the appropriate course for the petitioners is to file a separate petition challenging both the orders of the Tribunal as well as that of the Appellate Authority before this Court in a separate writ petition. No C.P. can lie on such an order under Section 17 of the Act. If the petitioners were otherwise aggrieved, they could have preferred a revision petition. That course is also not taken. Therefore, the C.P. is not maintainable and that has got to be rejected. If that course is adopted, the Writ Petition also has to be rejected. The appropriate course for the petitioners is as stated by us supra. Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule discharged.
8. From the said order what is clear to this Court is that unless a valid appeal is pending, same cannot be converted as writ proceedings. In the case on hand, appeal stood abated, and that therefore, no appeal as such was pending, and, hence, in terms of the Division Bench judgment, the proceedings cannot be continued in this case by way of writ petition.
9. Sri Khadar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Puran Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. : [1996]1SCR730 . It is stated therein that power of the writ courts is not limited by the procedural provisions prescribed in C.P.C. There cannot be any quarrel over this proposition. When the statute categorically states that only a 'valid appeal' can be converted as writ petition, this Court cannot convert the same as writ petition. Judgment of the Supreme Court in : [1996]1SCR730 is not available to the facts of this case in the light of Section 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1990.
10. Sri Khadar, learned Counsel also relies on 2005(1) KCCR 317 - Noel F.C. Pinto v. Mrs. Magdelien Mascarenhas (Deceased) by L.Rs. and Ors. I have carefully gone through the said judgment. It is no doubt true that the learned Single Judge has allowed the application and thereafter remanded the matter for re-decision. As on today, that was a case in which no I.A. as such was pending before the appellate authority. It was a case in which appeal stood abated and an application was filed in this Court to bring L.Rs. on record. Moreover, in the said case it is seen that while allowing the C.P. this Court ruled that any I.As. pending for consideration in the appeal shall be treated as part of the writ proceedings to be registered. In the light of this order, learned Judge has chosen to allow the I.As. in the case on hand. In this case, there is no such order. In the circumstances, the said judgment is not available.
11. On the facts of this case and in the light of the Division Bench judgment in Lalithamma's case (supra), I deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition as not maintainable. But, at the same time I further deem it proper to reserve liberty to the petitioner to file separate writ petition challenging the very order in accordance with law. In so far as apprehension of delay, as argued by Sri Khadar, learned Counsel, is concerned, petitioner is always at liberty to explain the delay in the light of this pending proceedings. Ordered accordingly. No costs.