RADHAKRISHNA SETTY Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL SOMWARPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of Venkataramiah.J., dated 8th December, 1975 made in WP. No.5741 of 1975 rejecting the appellant's writ petition at the preliminary hearing stage.

(2.) The appellant is the landlord owning 3 acres of agricultural land in Koodlur village, Somwarpet Taluk, in Sy.Nos.19/1 and 19/2. The second respondent alleging that he is the tenant of the said land filed an application under S.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy right. The said application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the second respondent is not a tenant of the said land and the appellant is personally cultivating the land. The parties besides examining themselves, have examined some witnesses on either side. The Tribunal granted the application of the second-respondent confirming occupancy rights in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy..No.19/1 and 19/2 of Koodlur village. The order of the Tribunal reads thus :

(3.) The second respondent has not appeared before us despite notice. The first-respondent, Land Tribunal, is represented before us by Sri M.P. Chandrakantraj Urs, Senior High Court Government Advocate, and he has made available the records of the case before the land Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal which has been fully set out by us is clearly not a speaking order. It makes no reference to the entries in the Record of Rights from which a statutory presumption under S.133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act arises. It was stated before us that the name of the appellant is shown in the Record of Rights as the person cultivating the land. When there is a statutory presumption arising from the fact that the name of the appellant is entered in the Record of Rights as the person cultivating the land, the Tribunal has to give reasons for holding that the statutory presumption has been rebutted by other evidence on record. The evidence on record before the Tribunal consisting of oral evidence has not been discussed. The mere subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal that the applicant before it is a tenant is not sufficient to sustain its decision. What is required of the Tribunal is an objective consideration of the evidence on record and therefore the Tribunal has to give reasons for its conclusions. The scope of the enquiry before the Tribunal under the Act has been laid down by this Court in more than one decision. When the order of the Tribunal is not a speaking order, it amounts to no adjudication at all. Such an order is a void order. This Court, when such an order is challenged under Art.226 or 227 of the Constitution, cannot give its own reasons to support the order, which, in effect, would mean that this Court is taking upon itself the the functions of the Land Tribunal. The learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the impugned order on the sole ground that it is not a speaking order without going into the merits of the case.