RADHA POOJARTHI Vs. KAMAL SHEDTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Advocates for both the contesting parties as also the learned Government Advocate on merits.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge in this case has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the present appellant on the solitary ground that the lands which comprise the two survey numbers which are the subject matter of this appeal are punja lands and that consequently, the provisions of the Act itself would not apply. The reason for this is also because the learned Single Judge has reproduced from the record of the case before the tribunal a small portion of the evidence of the power of Attorney Holder of the appellant who had claimed the tenancy rights and there is an unqualified admission referring to the lands in question as punja lands. The learned Single Judge has not gone into any other aspects of the case holding that the plea of tenancy under the Land Reforms Act would therefore necessarily have to fail. It is this order that is assailed before us.

(3.) THE Appellants learned Advocate has vehemently submitted that this is a case which has a very long background and she has drawn our attention to the earlier litigation between the parties preferred in the year 1971 and the findings of the court recorded in those proceedings and she has submitted that there is a very clear finding to he effect that the present respondent/land owner could not have been in possession and that the possession even at that point of time was with the lessee.