HANUMANTH Vs. MYSORE REV APP TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions filed under Arts.226 & 227 of the Constn. of India are disposed of by this common order since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration.

(2.) The petitioners in these three petitions are divided brothers. The petitioner in WP.1714 of 1972 is the owner of lands bearing S.Nos.241 & 244; the petitioner in WP.1732 of 1972 is the qwner of lands bearing S. Nos. 258 and 426; and the petitioner in WP.1733 of 1972 is the owner of S.No.43. All the lands are situated in Hattahalli village Taluka Indi, Dist. Bijapur. Respondent 8 Savanthrawa was the tenant of all the five lands referred to above. After the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force, the petitioners commenced proceedings under S.14 of the Act for resumption of portions of these lands. In those proceedings, the petitioners succeeded and it was held that they were entitled to resume one half of land in each of the five lands. Thereafter they instituted proceedings for delivery of partions adjudged in their favour. The Tahsildar executed the orders and put the petitioner in WP.1714/1972 in possession of his land on 23-10-1971 and the petitioners in WP.1732 & 1733 of 1972 in possession of their lands on 17-10-1971. Aggrieved by the aforesaid delivery proceedings, respondent 3 filed three revision petitions before the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under S.56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners contended that the revision petitions were not maintainable in view of sub-sec. (3) of S.56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which provided that no application for revision under S.56 would lie against any order from which an appeal lay under Chap.V of that Act. The Tribunal over-ruled the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners and allowed the revision petitions setting aside the delivery proceedings and directing restoration of possession of the lands to respondent 3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed these petitions.

(3.) Sri V. S. Gunjal, learned Counsel for respondent 3, raised a preliminary objection at the commencement of the hearing of these petitions relying upon S.91 of the Karnataka Lend Reforms (Amendment) Act (1 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as Act 1 of 1974), which reads as follows :