HANMANTH Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL JOIDA SUPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 2. 11. 1989 in Appeal No. DAAA/ad/32/89 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi, confirming the order passed by the Land tribunal, Joida (supa), in proceedings No. LRM/sr/47 Joida dated 22. 2. 1989.

(2.) PETITIONER claiming to be a tenant in respect of Sy. Nos. 27, 28; 29 and 30 measuring 6 acres 7 guntas, 2 acres 4 guntas, 0. 35 guntas and 0. 36 guntas situated at Pradhani Village, Hobli Supa, sirsi Taluk, filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. The said application filed by the petitioner had come up for consideration before the land tribunal on 3. 7. 1975. The land tribunal has granted the occupancy rights. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the land tribunal, the 2nd respondent herein has filed the writ petition before this Court. This Court passed an order, ramitting back the matter to the tribunal, directing the land tribunal to pass appropriate orders afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioner. After remand, the land tribunal has taken up the matter for fresh consideration. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he has not produced any documentary evidence nor has examined any independent witness i. e. , adjacent landowners. After considering the materials available on the file and the evidence of the landlord, the land tribunal has passed on order dated 22. 2. 1989 rejecting the claim of the petitioner holding that the land in question is not at all tenanted and vested in Government as on 1. 3. 1974. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the land tribunal, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal on the file of the land reforms appellate authority, Sirsi and the same has been numbered as Appeal No. DAAA/ad/32/89. The land reforms appellate authority after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and. order passed by the land tribunal has passed an order dated 2. 11. 1989, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner has failed to establish that the land in question is tenanted land and vested in government as on 1. 3. 1974 and he has not produced any documents or adduced any oral evidence to substantiate his statement except taking grounds in the memorandum of appeal. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the land reforms appellate authority, Sirsi, the petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Smt. Sona Vakkund is that, both the authorities have committed an error as well as irregularity in not conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules and in not affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his case. Further she vehemently submitted that the petitioner repeatedly made a request before the land tribunal and the appellate authority to give an opporutnity to the petitioner to adduce independent oral evidence on the ground that he does not have any documentary evidence such as entry in RTC or lease deed or any receipts. Therefore. , he is purely depending upon the oral evidence such as the evidence of the adjacent land owners and the tribunal has rejected his request and proceeded to pass the order. It is contended that, the said order is illegal and unreasonable. Against the said order an appeal has been filed before the appellate authority. The petitioner has filed an application under rule 9 (4) of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority Rules on 14. 9. 1989 requesting the appellate authority to permit the petitioner to adduce oral evidence. The said application filed by the petitioner has not been considered properly and the same has been rejected. Therefore, she requests that both the orders passed by the authorities are liable to be set aside.