CASHMIR FERNANDES Vs. B A RAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- Rule.2. The petitioner is an agricultural tenant in respect of land bearing T.S. No. 254 measuring 69 cents and T.S. No. 277 measuring 06 cents situated at Kodialbail in Mangalore Town, Dakshina Kannada District. The application filed by him in Form No.7 seeking for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the above lands was partly allowed in the earlier round of litigation. Against the said order the petitioner approached this court. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After the remand, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of both the items of lands in favour of the petitioner. This order of the Land Tribunal was again impugned by the first respondent and one Judith Mascarenhas. This is again allowed bythis court and remanded the matter once again to the Land Tribunal, for fresh enquiry.

(2.) In the third round of litigation, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner. This order was impugned before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mangalore and the same was also dismissed. Against those concurrent orders, the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision Petition No. 3944 of 1989 before this court. The said revision petition was allowed on 23-7-1993 by setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. Taking into consideration the long drawn history of this litigation, a direction was given to the Land Tribunal to dispose of the matttr on or before 31-12-1993.

(3.) The petitioner is now aggrieved by the order, Annexure-A, dt. nil, February 1994, wherein the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner transferred the case pending before the Land Tribunal to the Land Tribunal, Bantwal of Dakshina Kannada District. According to the petitioner, this act of the second respondent appears to be due to the petition being filed by the first respondent making certain allegations against one of the members of the third respondent-Land Tribunal. The petitioner contended that though there was no prayer in the petition for transfer of the matter from the third respondent Land Tribunal to any other Land Tribunal, the second respondent without any jurisdiction passed the impugned order which is liable to be quashed. It is also contended by the petitioner that the impugned order was passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice as no notice was issued to the petitioner. The other averments are not necessary to traverse in this petition.