LAWS(KAR)-2003-8-57

MARINAYAKA Vs. SYED BADRUDDIN

Decided On August 07, 2003
MARINAYAKA Appellant
V/S
SYED BADRUDDIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision can be disposed of on a pure question of law without going into the merits of the matter.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the course of this order with reference to their rank before the Appellate authority.

(3.) SYED Badruddin and Syed Ibrahim, the appellants before the Land reforms Appellate Authority challenged the order of the Land Tribunal, mysore in KLRM Nos. 2406/74-75 and 2401/74-75, dated 15-3-1984 under which the Tribunal had granted occupancy rights over an area of 1 acre and II1/2 cents each in Sy. No. 39 of Veeranagere Village in favour of Syed Asthak Peer and Kulle Gowda respectively under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Sy. No. 39 of Veeranagere Village originally belonged to one Jainulla Sab, the grandfather of the appellants and after his death the appellants have been enjoying the said land without dividing the same. The appellants learnt that respondents 6 and 7 had filed applications before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights over the said survey number and later they learnt that the impugned order was passed without the knowledge of the appellants. The lands were also the subject of acquisition by the first respondent-State and the award was passed on or about 6-11-1976 and the compensation amount was ordered to be paid to the eighth respondent-Bibijan for payment to the appellants and their cousins. But, the compensation amount is now being claimed by respondents 6 and 7 on the ground that they are the tenants of the lands in question. The conferment of occupancy rights in their favour was challenged by them on several grounds. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal the second appellant-Syed Ibrahim died. The legal representatives of Syed ibrahim were not brought on record before the Appellate Tribunal but the Appellate Tribunal proceeded with the appeal and allowed it. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent 6-Marinayaka has presented this revision.