GURUSHANTAPPA Vs. VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the tenant challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge who set aside the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as well as the Assistant Commissioner, Savanur, dismissing the application filed under Section 15 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The facts in brief are - Venkatesh, the 1st respondent herein, is an Ex-serviceman. He is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 40 measuring 22 acres 9 guntas situated in Chikkanellur village, Shiggaon taluk. The appellant filed an application before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights. By order dated 19.09.1979 the application was rejected. The 1st respondent was in military service. He was discharged on 29.07.1981. Immediately, thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a notice under Section 15 of the Act on 30.07.1981 seeking resumption of the land. The said notice was sent along with registered post acknowledgement due. It is the case of the 1st respondent that the notice was duly served on the appellant. However, he did not vacate and hand over the possession of the land in question. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed an application on 13.02.1982 under Section 15(4) of the Act before the Tahsildar, Shiggaon Taluk. Along with the application, 1st respondent produced a copy of the notice issued to the appellant as well as the postal receipt. He was not in a position to produce the registered acknowledgment. The Tahsildar entertained the application, allowed the application and directed the appellant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the land in question. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 118(2)(b) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal came to be dismissed upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent preferred the writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge, after looking into the entire material on record relying on the observations made by the Tahsildar to the effect that the 1st respondent retired from service on 29.07.1981; thereafter, on 30.07.1981 he had issued a notice to the appellant; in the course of enquiry, the appellant has not disputed the issue of notice. Therefore, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the Tribunal as well as the Assistant Commissioner have not properly appreciated the material on record and set aside the order. Learned single Judge held that there is proper service of notice and accordingly, he allowed the application filed under Section 15 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned order contends that the notice was not served on the tenant; in proof of service of notice, the 1st respondent did not produce the postal acknowledgment, therefore, the legal requirement as contemplated under Section 15(4) of the Act is not fulfilled; in fact, the tenant has even denied the filing of the application, there was no application at all and therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge without noticing these facts is illegal and requires to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent supported the impugned order.