ZAHEERABEE Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Basavakalyan, dated 12.8.2002 whereby it has rejected the application filed by Yusuf Miyan, husband of the first petitioner and father of other petitioners for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands bearing old No.160 new No.32 measuring 29 acres 7 guntas and old Sy.No.197, new No.90 measuring 5 acres and 10 guntas situated at Pratapur Village, Basavakalyan Taluk.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners mainly contends that the Tribunal while rejecting the application of Yusuf Miyan for grant of occupancy rights has acted in a biased manner. It is argued that the land originally belonged to late Mir Yuktiar Ali. His son Mir Tahaseen Ali was the member of the Land Tribunal during the relevant point of time. Though he has not participated in the proceedings as a member of the Tribunal, he has appeared before the Land Tribunal consisting of a Chairman and three other members and has given evidence in support of his contention that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the petitioners herein. By accepting the evidence of Mir Tahaseen Ali, the Land Tribunal has rejected the application of Yusuf Miyan. He has taken me through the entire order of the Land Tribunal and also the other materials placed on record. It is his submission that the spot inspection conducted by the Tribunal would clearly disclose that petitioners are in possession and cultivation of the lands as tenants thereof.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the lands originally belonged to late Mir Yuktiar Ali. His son Mir Tahaseen Ali was the member of the land Tribunal, Basavakalyan. There are four other members including the Chairman. It is no doubt true that Mir Tahaseen Ali has not acted as the member of the Land Tribunal while considering the application of Yusuf Miyan for grant of occupancy rights. He has appeared before the Land Tribunal consisting of other three members and the Chairman and has given evidence in support of his contention that the petitioners are not the tenants of the lands in question and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the petitioners. It is also clear that on the basis of the said evidence and certain other materials on record, the Land Tribunal has rejected the application of Yusuf Miyan seeking grant of occupancy rights.