RAVINDRA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioners' grievance is that the Land Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 9. 10. 2001, ought not to have granted occupancy rights in favour of R-3 in respect of the subject lands situated in Kagawada village in R. S. Nos. 10, 70, 71 and 66, measuring 5 acres 37 guntas, 5 acres 36 guntas, 14 acres 34 guntas and 9 acres 27 guntas of land respectively. The main ground urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Balakrishna Shastry is that the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of R-3 mainly on the basis of the entries found in Diary nos. 6613 and 6614 and since those entries have not been cancelled by any of the authorities, it is presumed that, as on 1. 3. 1974. R-3 was in occupation of the subject lands. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the petitioners have challenged the very entries mainly on the ground that the signatures found in the above said entries were forged and in this connection, an application was also filed before the learned Munsiff and the opinion of the expert was also obtained and the opinion rendered by the Forensic Science Laboratory as per Annexure-E confirms that the signature on the documents marked as Annexure-D was not in the hand writing of the person, who has signed Annexures-A1 to A8. The learned Counsel, referring to this document, submitted that in view of the application filed in regard to the veracity of the entries, the Land Tribunal, to which the proceedings in MLR 1437/1966 was transferred, ought to have given a finding on that before coming to the conclusion that R-3 is entitled for occupancy rights.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that no material was placed before the Tribunal by the petitioners to prove that the signatures in the entries 6613 and 6614 were forged ones and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.