SIDDALINGAMMA Vs. M R SHANMUGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the tenant to challenge the order dated 25-10-1989 passed by the land reforms appellate authority, nanjangud in appeal No. Dale. Aak. 123 of 1987, whereby the appellate authority had allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 1 by setting aside the order dated 13-10-1986 passed by the respondent 2, land tribunal, kollegal, by granting occupancy right to the revision petition.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Manjula devi for Sri r. b. sadashivappa, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent 1, Smt. S. n. sudha for Sri g. s. visweswara and the learned high court government pleader, Sri s. s. guttal, appearing for the respondent 2, land tribunal.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are as hereunder: that the petitioner herein had filed form 7 before the land tribunal claiming occupancy right in respect of 1 acre 20 cents out of 3 acres 40 cents in s. No. 360/2 of mudigunda village, kollegal taluk; that at the first instance by an order dated 16-5-1979, the land tribunal had granted occupancy right to the revision petitioner after holding an enquiry and the said order came to be challenged in the hands of the landlord in a writ petition before this court and the said writ petition came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the land tribunal for fresh enquiry; that in the meantime the surveyor attached to the respondent 1 held spot inspection and found that an extent of 1 acre 20 cents in s. No. 363/2 was in possession of the revision petitioner and upon that after two years or so, the revision petitioner made a personal request before the land tribunal to treat her claim as s. No. 363/2 instead of s. No. 364/2 as setout in form 7 filed by her earlier; that the land tribunal in pursuance of the direction issued in the writ petition, had also held yet another round of tenancy proceedings before permitting the parties to adduce evidence and thereafter on appreciation of evidence and upon hearing, the land tribunal had once again granted occupancy right in respect of the amended claim in s. No. 363/2, by its order dated 13-11-1986, that the landlord having been aggrieved thereto filed an appeal before the land reforms appellate authority (henceforth in brief as 'appellate authority'); that during the pendency of the appeal the contesting respondent 1 had filed an application to adduce additional evidence and that the said application came to be allowed by the appellate authority and in pursuance whereof the respondent 1 had also adduced further evidence by examining yet another witness before the appellate authority; that the said evidence tendered by the respondent 1 as well as his witness was not challenged by the revision petitioner herein, despite the fact that the matter was adjourned from 5-10-1989 to 8-10-1989 and again that the matter was adjourned from 23-10-1989 to 25-10-1989 and that finally on 25-10-1989 the appellate authority had passed the impugned order allowing the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the land tribunal granting occupancy right to the revision petitioner. It is the said order now under challenge before this court.