VASANTHA NANASAHEB Vs. PIRAJI PANDU PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the landlords of Survey No. 322 situated at Nilaji village of Belgaum Taluk, measuring 4 acres 16 guntas, challenging the order of granting occupancy rights in favour Of 1st respondent herein by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum in RALR No.81/87, dated 13.12.1989.

(2.) The records disclose that the 1st respondent herein filed Form No.7 for granting occupancy rights in his favour for the land bearing Survey No. 322, situated at Nilaji village of Belgaum Taluk, measuring 5 acres (actually measures 4 acres 16 guntas). The petitioners herein and respondent No.4 viz., Anantha Nansaheb Pawar, being the legal representatives of deceased Changunabai, are the landlords of the said property. The Land Tribunal on considering the material on record, rejected Form No. 7 filed by Ist respondent herein by its order dated 4.12.1986. Against the said order, 1st respondent filed statutory appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum. Both the parties were permitted to lead evidence before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, both the parties have led their evidence. The Appellate Authority after considering the material on record, including the additional evidence, granted the occupancy rights in favour of the 1st respondent by allowing his application in Form No.7. Being aggrieved by the order of Appellate Authority, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners.

(3.) Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the present Forrn No. 7 dated 20.12.1976 filed by 1st respondent herein is the second Form No.7 filed praying for grant of occupancy rights; that the first Form No. 7 filed by 1st respondent was on 8.11.1974 for grant of occupancy rights for five other survey numbers; and that therefore, the second Form No.7 is not maintainable. Secondly he submitted that the 1st respondent is actually set up by respondent No.4 viz., Anantha Pawar and that therefore, 1st respondent is not a real tenant over the property in question. He further submits that the appreciation of the evidence by the Court below is not just and proper, inasmuch as, the presumption arising out of the revenue records is not given due weightage by the Appellate Authority. Per contra, Sri Umesh R. Malimath, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 (a) to (c) argued in support of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Both the Learned advocates have taken me through the entire material on record.