GUNDE RAO Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is before me challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 19-4-1988 in this petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to petition averments, petitioner is a shareholder Inamdar along with respondents 3 and 4 of lands situated in Sy, No. 235 measuring 31 acres 37 guntas, Sy. No. 236 measuring 12 acres 4 guntas and Sy. No. 238 measuring 18 acres 34 guntas situated at Village Khodli and were inam. lands belonging to respondent 2. Father of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are brothers and sons of late Gunde Rao. Gunde Rao was a Archak and he died in 1950. Father of the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 jointly succeeded to the Inam lands referred to above and have equal share in the lands and thus were jointly in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the lands in question. Father of the petitioner died in the year 1980, and consequently, the petitioner being his son succeeded to the lands in question along with respondents 3 and 4. Petitioner and respondent 3 filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal granted the same in terms of an order 5-9-1983. That order was successfully challenged in W. P. No. 20958 of 1981. This Court remanded the matter and after remand, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 19-4-1988 has chosen to grant occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos. 235 and 236 in favour of respondent 3 and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. In the meanwhile, in view of the abolition of the Appellate Authority, a civil petition was filed and the proceedings were transferred to this Court. This is how this petition is listed before me.

(3.) AFTER hearing, I have carefully perused the order of the Land Tribunal. Land Tribunal has obtained the statement of the petitioner and so also the statement of respondent 3. Thereafter the tribunal comes to a conclusion on facts that the petitioner failed to prove the cultivation three years prior to 1-3-1974. It is seen from the evidence on record that the petitioner as well as the third respondent made a statement before the Tribunal and the same is recorded in writing. Third respondent would say that he was cultivating the lands and he has rendering services to the deity. Petitioner in his evidence has nowhere stated that he was cultivating the lands nrior to three years from 1-3-1974. In his evidence, he would also say that he came to know about the revenue entries in the name of respondent 3 about 8 to 10 years back. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Tribunal has committed any error whatsoever in rejecting the case of the petitioner in the light of his failure to prove his tenancy as on 1-3-1974.