SEETHAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 9-3-1988 in proceeding no. LRA 220 of 1987 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur ('appellate Authority for short) in reversing the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Koppa, dated 13-5-1987 in KLR:2111a and 2111b/1974-75 so far as it relates to 28 guntas in Sy. Nos. 62/3 and 62/4, has presented this revision petition.

(2.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition. The husband of the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the lands in question and after the death of her husband, she has succeeded to the same. Petitioner is in possession, enjoyment and in cultivation of the same. Accordingly, she has filed Form 7 for registration of occupancy rights before the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Koppa, stating that, she is the tenant in respect of 30 guntas in Sy. No. 62. The said application filed by the petitioner was registered as KLR:2111a and 2111b/1974-75. The said application, had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, Koppa on 6th February, 1976 along with the application filed by one Sri Subramanya. The Land Tribunal, by the said order granted occupancy rights in favour of petitioner to the extent of 30 guntas. Against the said order, one Sri Subramanya, rival tenant-3rd respondent herein has filed a writ petition before this Court in Writ Petition No. 13020 of 1977. The said writ petition filed by one Sri Subramanya was allowed by this Court by its order dated 30th January, 1980 and the order passed by Land Tribunal, Koppa, dated 6th february, 1976 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to Land Tribunal, Koppa, for conducting the enquiry afresh and to decide the claim of petitioner and the 4th respondent therein. After the remand, the Land Tribunal, Koppa, took up the matter for reconsideration on 13th May, 1987 and issued the notice to the petitioner and other parties. The Chairman and other members of the Land Tribunal, Koppa have made the spot inspection on 12-3-1987 and drawn the mahazar and sketch. In the mahazar they have recorded that, petitioner was cultivating an extent of 0. 21 guntas in Sy. No. 62/3 and 0. 07 guntas in Sy. No. 62/4, totally measuring 0. 28 guntas and one Sri Subramanya-3rd respondent herein was cultivating the land measuring 1. 38 guntas in Sy. No. 62/1 and 13 guntas in Sy, No. 62/2 totally measuring 2 acres 11 guntas and registered the occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner to that extent only. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13th May, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Koppa, 3rd respondent herein has filed an appeal on the file of the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur and the same was numbered in LRA No. 220 of 1987. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Authority on 9th March, 1988. The Appellate Authority, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and following the mandatory provisions of the Land Reforms appellate Authority Rules, has allowed the said appeal on 9th March, 1989, and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Koppa, insofar as it relates to conferring the occupancy rights in favour of petitioner herein and confirmed the occupancy rights granted in favour of the 3rd respondent, on the sole ground that, there is inconsistency in the evidence given by the petitioner before the Land Tribunal, Koppa earlier and she has failed to produce any lease deed, wara or any other receipts to prove her tenancy, except adducing oral evidence. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9th March, 1988 passed by the Appellate Authority, as stated above, petitioner has presented the instant revision petition on the ground that, the Appellate Authority has not conducted the enquiry in strict compliance of Land Reforms (Appellate Authority) Rules, 1986 and it has proceeded to pass the order contrary to the relevant material available on original record.

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