T P UNGAIAH Vs. PUTTAMADAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court.

(2.) Facts leading to this appeaj may be briefly stated and they are as follows:- Plaintiff brought Original Suit No. 539 of 1978 inter alia pleading that the defendant therein had encroached upon his land to the extent of 10 gun- tas in Survey No. 300/1 in which the plaintiff had been conferred occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal, Nanjangud constituted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by an order of the said Tribunal dated 20th March, 1976 passed in LRF 932/1974-75. In the very same proceeding, the defendant also had been granted in Survey No. 300/1 occupancy rights in respect of an extent of 1 acre and 2 guntas. Some three years thereafter, the defendant made another application to the Land Tribunal, Nanjangud seeking occupancy rights in respect of 17 guntas of land of which he claimed to be tenant in Survey No. 300/2 of the same village. These facts are not in dispute. What is required to be stated at this stage itself is that Survey No. 300 before the sub-division, measured in all 2 acres 24 guntas only.

(3.) Therefore, what was done in 1976 by the said Tribunal was to dispose of the total extent of land in Survey Nos. 300/1 and 300/2 by the orders made in favour of the plaintiff and defendant leaving only one gunta of land unaccounted. Therefore, any order obtained by the defendant subsequently under the 1979 application was in respect of land which really did not exist for conferment of occupancy rights once again in that survey number whether it was sub-divided or otherwise except to the extent of one gunta. It is in the light of these undisputed facts, the plaintiff asserted that he must be put in possession of one acre 21 guntas of land in Survey No. 300/1 to which he was entitled to under Exhibit P-3 the order made by the Land Tribunal in his favour. The plea of the defendant is and has been throughout that he is also entitled to 1 acre 2 guntas in survey No. 300/1 plus 17 guntas in Survey No. 300/2 which would make the extent of land in Survey No. 300 2 acres 23 guntas + 17 guntas. That would be 3 acres which does not exist in that survey number. Apparently, the order made by the Land Tribunal on the second application made by the defendant was clearly an order without jurisdiction and could not therefore confer on him any better right in regard to the occupancy than what he had in respect of the same Survey No. 300/1 which was disposed of together with the application of the plaintiff in the manner earlier stated, in 1976.