SEETHARAMAIAH B N Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL VIRAJPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants had presented applications under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in their favour in respect o"f certain lands. The Land Tribunal having rejected their applications, the appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal in Writ Petitions Nos. 4891, 15819 and 15820/79. The learned single Judge, by a common order made on 15-7-1980, dismissed the said writ petitions. Hence these appeals.

(2.) The Land Tribunal has, after elabour- ately considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, written a well considered order dealing with all the contentions urged by the rival parties. The Land Tribunal had given ample opportunity to all the parties of adducing evidence in support of their respective cases. The learned single Judge after carefully considering all the contentions has rightly come to the conclusion that on merits there is no case made out by the appellants calling for interference with the order of the Land Tribunal. As the Land Tribunal has recorded satisfactory findings on proper consideration of all the relevant material after giving an opportunity to all the parties of adducing evidence, it is not possible to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

(3.) It was, however, contended by Sri. U.L. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, that the statements of the witnesses examined before the Land Tribunal have not been recorded in the hand of the Chairman and that therefore the entire order of the Land Tribunal stands vitiated. Same contentions was urged before the learned single Judge, and the learned single Judge rejected that contention observing that the assertion of the appellants in this behalf is vague and that no objection in this behalf was taken before the Land Tribunal. Sri. Narayana Rao invited our attention to paragraph-3 of the writ petition wherein the averments bearing on this point have been made. It is stated therein that it is now well settled that the evidence of the parties and the witnesses ought to be recorded in the hand of the Chairman and not by a clerk or any member of the Tribunal. It is further stated that the evidence of the witnesses was not recorded in the hand of the chairman as contemplated by Sec. 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is also stated that the recording of the evidence in this manner has greatly prejudiced the case of the appellants in as much as what exactly the appellants and their witnesses stated before the Tribunal has not been faithfully recorded. The averments made by the appellants have been denied in the statement of objections filed by respondents 2 to 5 who have asserted that the recording of the evidence has been done in accordance with law. Sri. Narayana Rao further reli d upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in BYRAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1981-2 Kar.L.J. 1), in which it is held that having regard to the requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act the summary of the evidence in an enquiry before the Tribunal should be recorded by its Chairman and this is mandatory and that any breach of this requirement vitiates the proceedings before the Tribunal.