DINKAR PANDURANG GOWDA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL BAILBOUGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two petitions, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the application presented under Section 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1990 must be supported by an affidavit sworn by the party (petitioner).

(2.) Sri Jayakumar S. Patil and Sri S.K. Joshi,learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that, at the outset, having regard to the provisions of Section 17 dealing with the pending proceedings and having regard to the circular instructions issued by the High Court, the application filed under Section 17, must be construed liberally and it should not be rejected on mere technicalities that such an application was not in conformity .with Chapters 6 and 7 of the High Court Rules, in that applicant (petitioner) had not presented an affidavit sworn by him, along with the application.

(3.) In order to appreciate, the contentionurged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to refer to Chapter 7 of the High Court Rules. It reads :