SUMATHI P. RAI Vs. ISAC D'ALMEIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent 1 had to approach the Appellate Authority in the second round of litigation by filing an appeal challenging the order made by the Tribunal, which appeal stood transferred to the High Court and the same was treated as writ petition by the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Land Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in favour of Respondent 1 over the entire land instead of a portion of it. The landlord aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge filed writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order made by the learned Single Judge agreeing with the findings recorded. Hence, this appeal by the landlord.

(2.) Respondent 1 applied for grant of occupancy rights in Form 7 under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in respect of the land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in Survey No. 96 of Belle village. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights only to the extent of 30 cents holding that that was the only area which was cultivated by Respondent 1 and that he failed to establish his cultivatory rights over the rest of the land. The landlord did not choose to challenge the order of the Tribunal. As already noticed above, it is Respondent 1 tenant who questioned the validity and correctness of the order of the Tribunal, rejecting his claim for occupancy rights in respect of the remaining area of the land out of 4 acres 20 guntas, inasmuch as the occupancy rights were granted only to the extent of 30 cents. The learned Single Judge, in para 8 of his judgment, has stated thus:

(3.) Having considered the respective contentions in the light of the material available on record, the learned Single Judge passed the order holding that Respondent 1 was entitled to grant of occupancy rights in respect of the entire extent of land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in Survey No. 96. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment, did not find any good ground or valid reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.