A M RAMANNA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL MANDYA TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the revision petition filed under Section 121A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The non-official respondent No. 2 C.L. Thammaiah (since dead and substituted by his legal heirs) had filed the revision before the High Court questioning correctness of the order dated 28.2.1990 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mandya, reversing the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Mandya on 21.1.1988. Stand before the High Court was that the claim for grant of occupancy, though initially accepted by the Land Tribunal was erroneously rejected by the Appellate Authority on re-appreciation of the evidence.

(2.) Background facts as noticed by the High Court in a nutshell are as follows:

(3.) Stand before the High Court was that the Appellate Authority should have held that Thammaiah was a deemed tenant in terms of Section 4. It was also submitted merely because the alleged lease deed was not a registered document as required under law, the same cannot be treated to be a concocted document. On the basis of the said agreement 14 lands belonging to Boregowda were leased out to the tenant Thammaiah and except that land in dispute the remaining 13 lands which were given to the wife and daughter under a deed of settlement had been granted to the original tenant only on the basis of the said agreement.