RAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Dattoba Daji Saheba Desai filed Form No.7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') before the Land Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal), Belgaum, claiming occupancy rights over the land Survey No. 43 measuring 2 acres 23 guntas exclusively to himself. 3 other applicants namely, Baburao Desai, Vishwasrao Desai and Jayawantrao Desai also made similar applications for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the same land claiming 1/4th share each. The Tribunal, after conducting enquiry, by order dated 20-8-1975 granted occupancy rights in favour of these 4 persons as regards their respective shares. Dattoba, aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition No. 5244/1975 before the High Court challenging the correctness of the said order of the Tribunal. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. After the remand, the Tribunal after hearing the parties by its order dated 23-6-1981 held that these 4 applicants were entitled for culti-vatory right to the extent of 1/4th share. Dattoba filed Writ Petition No.18378/1981 for the second time calling in question the validity and correctness of the order of the Tribunal dated 23-6-1981 alleging irregularities in the conduct of the enquiry by the Tribunal. The High Court again allowed the writ petition, remitted the case to the Tribunal for re-enquiry and disposal. The Tribunal took up the case for the third time after issuing notices to the parties. The Tribunal, by a detailed order dated 23-9-1996 by majority, granted occupancy rights in favour of the 4 branches of the applicants to the extent of th share each as per the boundaries shown in the order of the Tribunal dated 23-6-1981. Writ Petition No.29937/96 was filed by the grandsons of Dattoba as legal heirs challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 23-9-1996 contending that the occupancy rights should have been granted exclusively to them. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, allowed the writ petition by his order dated 10-8-1998 holding that the occupancy rights in respect of the said land vest exclusively in Dattoba's branch and remaining branches of the family do not have any share in the said land. Jayavantrao Desai, respondent No.8 in the writ petition, filed Writ Appeal No.4310/98 before the Division Bench of the High Court questioning the validity and correctness of the order made by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court, after considering the rival contentions, in para 9 of the order held thus :

(2.) In this view, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. Thus, the order of the Tribunal stood restored. Hence, this appeal by the legal heirs of Dattoba questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned order made by the Division Bench.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants contended that having regard to the evidence both oral and documentary, learned Single Judge was right in reversing the order of the Tribunal holding that the branch of Dattoba was entitled for grant of occupancy rights over the land in question exclusively; Chairman of the Tribunal gave detailed reasons in support of the finding that Dattoba's branch alone was entitled for occupancy rights; Members of the Tribunal did not agree with the Chairman and took the view that the four applicants were entitled for grant of occupancy rights to the extent of 1/4th share each but without assigning reasons and without considering the evidence brought on record; the learned Single Judge was right in reversing the order of the Tribunal as it was based merely on majority opinion there being no support either in law or on facts.