ABDULSA LALSAB DADHED Vs. BHIMAJI VITHAL KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Land Reforms Revision Petition is filed by the tenant to challenge the order dated 20-11-1989 in appeal No. L. R. A. 206 of 1987 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, bijapur. In passing the said order, while allowing the appeal of the respondent 1, the Appellate Authority had confirmed the order dated 30-10-1987 passed in Case No. TNC. SR. 375-289 of the respondent 3-Land Tribunal, rejecting the grant of occupancy right to the appellant.

(2.) I heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri R. L. Patil appearing for M/s. Patil and Patil and Sri R. B. Anneppanavar appearing for the contesting respondent 2. The respondent 1 having been served with notice has remained absent before Court. The respondent 3-Land Tribunal, Basavana bagewadi is also served with notice and it has remained absent before Court. The learned Government Pleader Smt. Meenakumari is therefore directed to take notice for the said respondent 3 and hence she has represented the said respondent

(3.) I have also perused the case records both of the Appellate Authority as well as the Land Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner while taking me through the facts of the case submitted as hereunder: that the petitioner had filed Form 7 for claiming occupancy right in respect of 13 acres 39 guntas out of the total extent of 28 acres 14 guntas of Hanumapura village by filing Form 7 before the respondent 3-Land Tribunal. That at the first instant, the land Tribunal had granted the occupancy right to the petitioner and that the same was challenged before this Court in Writ petition No. 13764 of 1981, wherein the order granting occupancy right to the petitioner was quashed, for the writ petition was allowed by this Court on 14-11-1983 and this Court while doing so directed the Land Tribunal to hold a fresh enquiry in the matter of claim of the petitioner. That thereafter, the Land Tribunal had held the second round of tenancy proceedings. The petitioner had examined himself and further examined two other witnesses one Basappa Siddappa Murnal and another Erappa Bilagi in support of his claim, whereas the contesting respondent 2 had examined himself and examined two other witnesses, one Shankara Math and another Shivappa pujari before the Land Tribunal. The contesting respondent 2 had also produced before the Land Tribunal two stamped receipts dated 9-8-1970 and 10-7-1965 stated to have been executed by the revision petitioner to the effect that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was given by way of loan by the petitioner to the respondent 2 on interest at 2 per cent per month and further to the effect that the revision petitioner had acknowledged the repayment of the said sum and farther agreed for getting his name deleted from the pahanis.