BHARAMAPPA PUTTAPPA UPPAR Vs. SUSHILABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is by a tenant who has sought for conferment of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms act and who is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single judge remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal though the Land tribunal had granted occupancy rights in his favour.

(2.) THE tenant being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single judge has come up in this appeal. This Court normally would not interfere with an order of remand. It only enables the parties to have an opportunity and an authority to look into the matter once more in the light of the various materials that may be placed and the contentions urged by the parties. A remand order is justified only when there is some purpose to be served and when parties are in a position to place before the authority any material, for the production of which they have been deprived of an opportunity and if it can have a bearing on the outcome of the decision of the Land Tribunal. In the present situation, as we are of the view that no useful purpose will be served by the remand of this matter, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in the following narration of the facts and circumstances and for the reasons mentioned hereunder.

(3.) THE appellants had filed application in Form 7 before the Land tribunal, Haveri, claiming occupancy rights with respect to Sy. No. 56 of ijarilakamapur, Haveri Taluk measuring an extent of 17 acres and 21 guntas. In the first instance, the application was dismissed by the Land tribunal by an order dated 19-2-1977. The applicants being aggrieved, prefereed Writ Petition No. 2248 of 1977 to this Court and this Court set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal after holding proper enquiry. Pursuant to the remand, the Land tribunal has passed the order dated 29-10-1988 granting occupancy rights to the appellants. Aggrieved by this order, the owner preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Haveri. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the owner was that the lands in question were not tenanted lands and the use of the words 'agavu Lavani' indicates that it is not really an agricultural tenancy in respect of the lands which qualifies for conferment of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and as such, the applicants could not have been granted occupancy rights. The further grievance was that the owner was not given full opportunity to adduce additional evidence in support of her case. The appeal which had been numbered as L. R. A. No. 208 of 1988 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.