M B NANJUNDA SETTY Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL SOMARPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal preferred by a land-holder is directed against the order dated 8-12-1975 made by Venkataramiah, J., in W.P. No. 5739 of 1975 rejecting the writ petition at the prelimiary hearing stage. The appellant is the holder of three agricultural lands comprised in Survey Nos. 10/1, 11/2, and 89/1 of Bvchanahall village, Kushalanagar Taluk, Coorg District. The second respondent made an application before the Land Tribunal, Somwarpet Taluk, Cooorg District, under Section 4B-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for grant of occupancy right in respect of the aforesaid three lands alleging that he is a tenant of the lands personally cultivating the same immediately prior to 1-3-1974. On the said application, notice was issued to the appellant landholder.

(2.) It is relevant to observe that before notice was issued to the appellant, the application of the second respondent in form No. 7 was not verified by the Tahsildar with reference to the entries in the Revenue records as he is required to do under Rule 19 of the Rules made under the Act. The Tahsildar has merely noted that he has 'verified'. He has not stated whether the name of the applicant appears in the Record of Rights as the tenant of the lands in question. The appellant's son appeared before the Tribunal and he was examined. The second respondent was examined and on his behalf the Patel of the village was also examined. Thereafter, the Tribunal made an order which reads thus :-

(3.) The order of the Tribunal granting occupancy right to the second respondent was challenged by the appellant before this Court in W. P. No. 5739 of 1975. The matter came up before Venkataramiah, J. for preliminary hearing. The learned Single Judge appears to have directed the Counsel for the appellant to produce the deposition of the witnesses and alter discussing the evidence of the witnesses he rejected the writ petition holding that the Tribunal has found, on the material placed before it, that the second respondent was a tenant and was, therefore, entitled to be registered as its occupant.