M ANANTHA PADMANABHA BHAT Vs. KALI POOJARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the appellant's learned Advocate, learned Advocate for the contesting respondent and the learned Government Advocate on merits.

(2.) THIS appeal is one more classic illustration of a situation in which despite Land Tribunal having granted substantial areas of the land to the applicant leaving aside one very small piece for very valid reason that desperate attempt is made to grab that piece of land also.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the original applicant who is the father of respondent 1 had applied for the grant of occupancy rights in respect of six pieces of land. The Tribunal by order dated 5-8-1981 granted occupancy rights in respect of 5 of the lands in question about which there is no dispute because the landowner has, as per the indication in the record virtually conceded the claim. Despite this, we must say to the credit of the Tribunal, that there is a clear indication in the order that even though the proceeding was virtually ex parte that it has fulfilled its obligations by examining the claim, cross-checking the records, verifying the areas and the exact land under cultivation and has thereafter granted occupancy rights. The dispute is in respect of an area of 90 cents in Sy. No. 508/2. In the order dated 5-8-1981 while the five survey numbers and their areas are mentioned there is no reference to this piece of land i. e. , 508/2 measuring 90 cents. Form 10 was issued some time thereafter and it appears from the record that some time in the year 1992 an application was filed for inclusion of this survey number in the lands granted to the tenant by the name of Thammu Poojari, but no orders were passed on that application. The tenant made a Will in which he has bequeathed the lands to his son and the daughter as late as in the year 1996. The daughter who is the present respondent 1 to this appeal filed an application requesting the Tribunal to carry out what was termed as a correction. The case made out was that in Form 7 this land has been claimed, that in the revenue records there is a reference to the original tenant Thammu Poojari even as far as this survey number is concerned and that it was an obvious mistake on the part of the tribunal not to have granted occupancy rights in respect of this land and that therefore, the original order be corrected. This application was resisted by the present appellant who is the landowner. His contention was that the land in question is punja land and that this land was never leased out to the tenant, that there is no mistake and that consequently, there is no question of it being included in the original order. The Tribu-rial rejected the application against which the present respondent 1 filed a Writ Petition No. 7607 of 1998 which was disposed of by the learned single Judge by order dated 31-1-2001.