SHIVALINGAPPA Vs. CHANDRAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner filed Form 7 before the Land Tribunal for of occupancy rights in respect of the land in Sy. No. 32/2 measuring 3 acres 26 guntas of Benamagi Village, Chittapur Taluk in Gulbarga District. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 20.7.1981 granted occupancy rights. The same was challenged by the first Respondent land -lady in W.P. No. 7288/1982 before this Court, which was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority after Section 118 -A of the Act was inserted by way of an amendment during pendency of the Writ Petition. It was treated as deemed appeal and by the Judgment dated 19 -12 -1988 the appeal was allowed, the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the Form 7 filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Autority by recording its findings with reasons in the Judgment. The said Judgment is questioned by the Petitioner in this revision petition urging various legal contentions.

(2.) I have perused the Judgment under revision and the order of the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the land in question based on the pahani entries made in his favour without conducting any enquiry. The order of the Land Tribunal is cryptic. Before the Appellate Authority the parties have adduced evidence and produced documents in support of their respective claim and counter claim. Upon consideration of the same the Appellate Authority passed the Judgment under appeal setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal. The Appellate authority found that the pahani entries for the years 1970 -71 to 1972 -73 stood in the name of the landlord. Only for the year 1973 -74 the name of the Petitioner is shown along with another. That means, all of a sudden the name of the Petitioner was included in the pahani and based on the said entry he appears to have filed Form 7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. Rightly the Appellate Authority did not attach the presumptive value to the said entries in the RTC record and it has disbelieved the tenancy claim by recording its reasons.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the revision petition is dismissed.