VENKAMMA Vs. D SHIVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision has been presented by the petitioners, namely, Smt. Venkamma, d. Non- appa gowda and d. Krishnappa gowda claiming to be the legal representatives of deyyakku hengsu who was granted occupancy rights under Section 48-a of the kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) on her application in form No.7. Aggrieved by the said Order, the 1st respondent- landlord D. Shiva Rao filed a writ petition in this court, which, in the light of the amendments made to the act came to be transferred to the appellate authority constituted under Section 116-a of the act inserted by act No. 19/1986 with effect from 6-12-1985. Therefore, it was numbered by the appellate authority as I.R.A.A.No. 339/1986 as a deemed appeal. Even during the pendency of the writ petition in this court, the respondent-tenant in whose favour the order had been made by the land tribunal, sullia, had passed away. Application under order 22, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. had come to be made. Before the tribunal, it was noticed that the notice issued had been returned with the shara that the said deyyakku hengsu had left No. L.rs. And that the address given was not correct and as such the notice was refused to be accepted by those who were stated to be the I.RS, in that circumstance, the counsel for the appellant did not press I.A.I to bring the l.rs. On record. It was dismissed as not pressed.

(2.) it is evident from the order of the appellate authority that it proceeded to dispose of the same under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Karnataka land reforms appellate authority rules, 1986 (since repealed). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the rules provides as follows;

(3.) i am satisfied that the appellate authority totally misunderstood the provision made therein, deliberately, despite the knowledge that the respondent was dead arid it was impossible for such respondent to appear before the appellate authority. Rule 27 of the rules specifically provides for application of the Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in the said rules. No provision is made to bring l.rs. On record in the rules. Therefore, order 22, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. was attracted and in fact the appellate authority was aware that such an application had been made under order 22, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. and it had dismissed that application, as not pressed. Therefore, the order under revision is not merely illegal but deliberate abuse of the power conferred on the appellate authority. It is a surprise that despite a judicial member being on the appellate authority, this procedure has been adopted.