APPAIAH Vs. ARCHAK LAXMINARAYANA ACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant Land Reforms Revision Petition, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 30th November 1988 passed in ALRAA No. 4/1988 on the file of the additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickballapur, confirming the order dated 6th january 1988 passed in proceedings No. LRM. 1551/74- 75, 106:80-81, 107:80-81, 108:80-81, 109:80-81, 110:80-81 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Chintamani and also the order dated 6th january 1988 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Chintamani, has presented the instant revision petition.

(2.) PETITIONER herein, claiming to be tenant in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 16, measuring 02 acres 23 guntas, situate at Sonnsettihalli, Chintamani Taluk, had filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the said land which was attached to Sri. Anjaneya swamy temple, under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for brevity "act" ). The said application filed by petitioner had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, chintamani on 11th October 1977 and on 22nd September 1981. The Land Tribunal, chintamani, after conducting enquiry in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, proceeded to pass the order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Chintamani, petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition before this Court in Writ Petition No. 11790/1982. The said writ petition filed by petitioner was allowed by this Court by its order dated 27th March 1984 and the order passed by Land Tribunal Chintamani was set aside and the matter was remitted back to Land Tribunal, Chintamani for reconsideration and to conduct common enquiry in strict compliance of the requirement of Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. After remand, the Land Tribunal, Chintamani took up the matter for reconsideration on 6th january 1988. The Land Tribunal, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on file and the claim made by petitioner, has rejected his claim for grant of occupancy on the ground that, petitioner has failed to establish that, he was a tenant as on 1st July 1970 or as on 1st March 1974 along the application filed by two other applicants, i. e. respondents 1 and 2 herein. Further, the Land Tribunal has specifically mentioned that, in the proceedings before the special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore in No. A5-Ml (K)23/77-78 dated 30th June 1977, the land in question has been registered in the name of deity, i. e. Sri. Anjaneyaswamy Temple. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by Land Tribunal, chintamani dated 6th January 1988, the petitioner herein filed the appeal on the file of the Land reforms Appellate Authority, Chickballapur (hereinafter called the "appellate Authority") in proceedings No. A. L. R. A. A. 4/1988. The Appellate Authority, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after conducting enquiry, in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Appellate Authority Rules and after giving sufficient opportunity to parties, has given a specific finding at paragraphs 12 and 13 of its order holding that, petitioner has failed to establish that, he was cultivating the land as tenant as on 1st July 1970 or as on 1st march 1974 and dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner, confirming the order passed by Land tribunal, Chintamani. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, chintamani and the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickballapur, as stated supra, petitioner herein has presented the instant revision petition.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by Sri. G. Gangireddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside at the threshold itself in view of non compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 27th march 1984 in Writ Petition No. 11790/1982 filed by petitioner. Secondly, he vehemently submitted that, as per Section 4 of the Act, petitioner was lawfully cultivating the land and is therefore, entitled to be declared as tenant by registering occupancy rights in his favour. Thirdly, he has taken me through the order passed by Land Tribunal as well as the order passed by the appellate Authority and specifically pointed out that, there is a reference in the orders passed by both the authorities that, petitioner's name is found in the RTC extract from 1967-68,1968-69 1969-70,1970-711971- 72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. He submitted that, if that reference is taken into consideration, petitioner is entitled for grant of occupancy rights in his favour. Further, it is the serious grievance of the Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that, these three valid grounds have not at all been taken into consideration by both the authorities and contrary to the material available on record and contrary to the directions issued by this Court, both the authorities have proceeded and passed the impugned orders, without conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned orders passed by both authorities are liable to be set aside.