DEVAKI Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the common order dated 7-9-1989 in appeal No. DAAA:ap: 318/1986 on the file of the District Additional Land Reforms Appellate authority, Sirsi ("appellate Authority" for short) confirming the order dated 13-4-1981 in proceeding No. LRM:sr:4949 passed by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi, has presented this revision petition.

(2.) THE petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 claiming to be the rival tenants in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 26/1 measuring 1 acre; Sy. No. 28/2 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situate at adanalli Village, Sirsi Taluk, Uttar Kannada District, have filed their applications in Form 7 for registration of occupancy rights in their favour. The applications filed by the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, Sirsi on 13th April, 1981. The Land Tribunal, Sirsi has registered the occupancy rights in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 and rejected the claim of the petitioner by its order dated 13-4-1981. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13-4-1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi, petitioner has filed writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, respondents 3 to 5 and others have filed writ appeals before this Court in W. A. Nos. 2302 to 2305 of 1984 and the said writ appeals were allowed by this Court by setting aside the observation made by the learned Single Judge and the matter was transferred to the Appellate Authority for disposal and it was renumbered as daaa:ap:318:1986. The Appellate Authority, after conducting the enquiry as envisaged under the Land Reforms (Appellate Authority) Rules, 1986 and after critical evaluation of oral and doctimentary evidence and other materials available on file, has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi and the Appellate Authority, Sirsi, as referred above, petitioner felt necessitated to present this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Other respondents served and unrepresented.