ROKYAYABI Vs. ISMAIL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After admitting this appeal, with the consent of the learned counsel for the contesting parties, we heard the matter finally today.

(2.) The first respondent alleges that he filed an application for grant of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, Tiptur, under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That application having been rejected, he has challenged the order of the Tribunal in Writ Petition No. 42230/82. After the appellant, owner of the lands, was duly served, she made an application 1. A. I for appointment of a receiver in respect of the lands in question. The learned single Judge has rejected the said application on merits observing that the averments in the application, if at all may justify the appellant seeking an appropriate interim order of injunction and not an order of appointment of a has further held that the application for appointment of a receiver is not maintainable. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Sri U. L Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned single Judge was not right in taking the view that an application for appointment of a receiver cannot be maintained in a writ petition filed under Art. 216 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Land Tribunal rejecting the application of the applicant made under S. 48-A of the Act for grant of occupancy rights.