PAKEERA MOOLYA Vs. K R MARI BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these two petitions arise out of an order made by the land tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of dooma moolya and krishna moolya who are the legal representatives of manku moolya and pakeera moolya. So far as manku moolya is concerned, the tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of land comprised in survey number 33/3, measuring about 1 acre 17 cents. In regard to pakeera moolya, petitioner in writ petition no. 17527 of 1991, the tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of following items : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_281_KANTLJ3_1994Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) it is contended on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition No. 17528 of 1991 that the tribunal based its decision on the statement of the petitioner's father, entries in the levy register for the year 1973-74 and certain proceedings before the tahsildar in relation to entries made in the rtcs. It is urged that the tribunal could not have relied upon the proceedings before the tahsildar as that was in serious dispute and no final orders had been made as on the date the order was made by the tribunal in regard to entries to be made in rtcs. It is submitted that in regard to levy register there is no particular reference to the lands or the survey numbers thereof much less the entry in the levy register is in favour of tenants in question. On the other hand, it is submitted that the levy register shows the name of the petitioner alone. It is also urged that the tribunal could not have relied upon the concession made by the father of the petitioner inasmuch as there was serious dispute between them and in fact a civil suit had been filed and a decree had been passed in the suit.

(3.) countering these submissions learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the tribunal has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter properly in granting occupancy rights in favour of petitioner. However, it failed to take into consideration the full claim made by the tenant pakeera moolya inasmuch as the claim of the tenant was not only in respect of items granted but there were certain other items which had been claimed in form No. 7 even earlier. The supposed amendment is not available on the record and there is no amendment application as such and whatever amendment application is found in the record cannot be treated as an amendment application at all inasmuch as it is a concocted document and introduced into the file subsequent to the proceedings.