LAWS(KAR)-2003-9-70

H L NARAYANACHAR Vs. REVAPPA

Decided On September 01, 2003
H.L.NARAYANACHAR Appellant
V/S
REVAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 484 measuring 9 acres situated in Amalapur Village in Hospet Taluk. By an order dated 18-8-1981 occupancy rights were granted in favour of the petitioner for 9 acres of land. By the impugned order at Annexure-B, dated 29-6-2002, the order dated 18-8-1981 is modified and occupancy right is granted to the petitioner only for 4 acres and the remaining 5 acres is granted to respondents 1 to 3 jointly. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned order.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 also filed application seeking registration of occupancy rights of the same land to an extent of 5 acres. Their claim was rejected by the Land Tribunal by an order dated 11-9-1986. The same was challenged in R. A. No. 192 of 1987, which was later numbered as W. P. No. 30270 of 1998. The said writ petition was allowed on 7-7-1999 quashing the order dated 11 -9-1986 of the Land Tribunal and the matter was remitted to the land Tribunal for fresh disposal of the applications of the petitioner herein and respondents 1 and 2. Accordingly, the impugned order is passed by the Land tribunal. The petitioner was also a party to the aforesaid writ petition. Hence, the order passed therein, which has become final, is binding on the petitioner.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 18-8-1981 granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner for 9 acres of land was not the subject-matter before the Appellate Authority or in the writ petition and therefore the Land Tribunal committed an error by modifying the order dated 18-8-1981 and reducing the extent from 9 acres to 4 acres. This contention is rebutted by the learned Counsel for the respondents placing reliance upon the decision in Mahaveer Chambanna Kallimani and Others v state of Karnataka and Others. In that decision it is held that the Land tribunal has power to revoke its earlier order granting occupancy rights and to consider the rival claims. In view of the law laid down in the said decision, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner fails.