R VENKATARAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner made an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 72 measuring 17 acres 16 guntas of Jarak bandekaval, Bangalore North Taluk. 4th Respondent is the rival claimant seeking occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 72 to the entire extent of 33 acres 22 guntas. The third respondent is the landlord.

(2.) THE Land Tribunal in its order opines that the petitioner is closely related to the landlord who was shanbogue of the village. RTC entries in favour of the petitioner for the years 1970 - 71 onwards could be concocted entries. The tribunal finds that the 4th respondent is entitled for grant of occupancy rights to the entire extent in Sy. No. 72.

(3.) THE petitioner is now before this Court and contends that the RTC entries carry legal presumption. The records were also before the Land Tribunal to show that the petitioner borrowed agricultural loan from the Bank in the year 1970 - 71 in respect of the land in question. Counsel for the 4th respondent strenuously argued that RTC entries in favour of the petitioner is a concocted entry. Fourth respondent complained the matter to the revenue authorities. Upon enquiry, the revenue authorities have set aside the entries made in favour of the petitioner. To substantiate this fact, there is no documentary material available nor the Tribunal noted this fact. The impugned order is pronounced by the chairman on 24th May 1988. The other two members have signed the order dated 5. 7. 88 and 28. 7. 88. The signing of the order by the Chairman and the members on different dates strongly suggests that the order was not legal and formally pronounced on 24th May 1988. The judicial discipline requires that the Judges in multi member adjudicating body, should pronounce their opinion on the same date and simultaneously. This judicial discipline is equally applicable to quasi judicial bodies. The pronouncement of the orders by the multi - member adjudicating body at different times and different dates would be blatantly illegal. In view of the reasons and discussions, I find that the Tribunal has not considered and discussed the material produced by the petitioner and the final order pronounced is not in acordance with law. Hence the order of the Land Tribunal is set aside to the extent which affects the interest of the petitioner and the matter is remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.