MUNIYALLAPPA Vs. B M KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant claims occupancy right under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. His claim has been allowed by the Land Tribunal, but the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside by the Karnataka High Court. The decision of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The question for consideration is whether the High Court after setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. In fact, this was the only question that was urged in the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench has rejected that request on the ground that the occupancy right claimed by the appellant was not one arising out of agrarian relations. This conclusion seems to have been based on the pleadings before the High Court. It is reflected from the following observations of the Division Bench of the High Court [AIR 1977 Kant 137 at p. 147] :

(3.) It seems to us that the High Court was not justified in its approach. Pleadings of parties in the High Court are not relevant in this case. The claim made by the applicant before the Land Tribunal in his application under S.45 of the Land Reforms Act is only relevant. That application has been made in the prescribed form and it is the foundation of the appellant's claim. By ignoring that application, the High Court could not have rested its conclusion on the pleadings of parties before the High Court.