SESU POOJARTHY Vs. YOGISH @ NARAYANA PRABHU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point hat has been canvassed on behalf of the Appellant in these appeals is that these are the cases in which there was absolutely no justification for interference by the learned Single Judge. The reason for it is because as against the original claim that was put forward for occupancy rights of an area ad -measuring 1 Acre 33 Cents, the Tribunal ultimately granted a very small area of 47 cents, which is really the area occupied by the house, hut and the small area around it. What has been pointed out to us is that, from the record it is clear that at the time of surgery, the land owner had virtually consented to the allotment of this land, that this position continued even before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has virtually passed what we would have to define as a consent order. In this background, there was absolutely no ground on which interference was justifiable and the Appellant's submission is that the learned Single Judge having reduced the area to 25 cents was uncalled for. It is true that the learned Single Judge has gone into some little aspects for validity of surrender which was totally irrelevant as far as the facts of the present case are concerned and consequently, we have no option except to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and to restore the order passed by the Tribunal where under, the Appellants were granted a total area of 47 cents. The appeals succeed to this extent and stand disposed of. No order as to costs. ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO The appeal was set down for further hearing today because, it is true that when we passed orders on the last date of hearing, the Respondents learned Advocate was not present and though we had very carefully perused the records and we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be upheld, we did not have the benefit of submissions on behalf of the Respondent. At a request being made that the appeal should be reheard, we have relisted the same today and we have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

(2.) ON behalf of the Respondent, the main submission canvassed is that both the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge having accepted the position that the revenue records do not support the claim of the Appellant and that it is only on the basis of some concession that is alleged to have been made before the Tribunal coupled with the fact that when the site inspection was done, some areas are supposed to have been found in possession of the Appellant that the area of 47 cents in all has been allotted. Learned Advocate submits that in this background, even if the admission contained in the Respondents statement is to be relied upon, that the Court would still have to see that this statement is supported by the relevant entries, that it would not be strictly just and permissible to allot the land in question because, a mere oral submission or admission cannot be used as the sole basis for conferring occupancy rights. As far as this submission is concerned, we find it a little difficult to accept the same because, in all such proceedings an admission or a concession would bind the party and would also be indicative of the fact that the judicial forum can act on that basis without having to thereafter fall back on other pieces of evidence.

(3.) WHAT was also pointed out to us was that the whole basis for the claim emanates from the fact that the original tenant was inducted only in the little house that is present there and that this has now been extended to contend that the tenant is entitled to an additional area also. The occupancy of the house does date back to the late 50's and if the survey report indicates that some small areas around that place were also in possession of the Appellant, it would be a little difficult for the Court to then hold that the Appellant has absolutely no right in respect of those small areas. We do concede that the material before the Court is not very conclusive but, in cases of this type, the Court has to ultimately decide as to whether the Tribunal on the given facts and circumstances of the case has arrived at, what may be regarded as a fair and correct conclusion. In the present instance, though much can be said on either side, we are of the view that the Tribunal's order was a sustainable one and that consequently, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with that order at all.