VITHAL NAGAPPA METRI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision to challenge the order dated 27-9-1989 in appeal No. R. a. l. r. No. 33 of 1988, passed by the district land reforms appellate authority, belgaum, whereunder the appellate authority set aside the order dated 9-12-1987, passed by the respondent 2-land tribunal, belgaum granting occupancy right to the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri b. s. kamate, the learned counsel Sri g. b. shastry appearing for the contesting respondents 3 and 4. The respondent 1-state and the respondent 2-land tribunal are represented by Sri h. Hanumantharayappa, the learned high court government pleader. The respondents 5 and 6, the formal parties having been served with notices have remained absent.

(3.) TO advert to the facts of the case, the same are as hereunder: that the father of the petitioner had filed form No. 7, before the respondent 2-land tribunal on 22-7-1974 claiming occupancy right in respect of 38 guntas of land in sy. No. 666/2 of yellur village in belgaum taluk. In the said form No. 7, it has been claimed that the father of the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the land for 20 years. That the respondent 2-land tribunal after issuing notices to all the parties concerned held an enquiry with regard to the above claim of the petitioner's father and granted occupancy right to the petitioner herein by its order dated 9-12-1987. The same was challenged by the respondents 3 and 4 before the district land reforms appellate authority, belgaum (hereinafter for convenience referred to as 'l. r. a. a. ' ). Both the petitioners on the one side and the contesting respondents 3 and 4 on the other, had adduced additional evidence before the l. r. a. a. , by resorting to applications thereto, whereupon both the sides had adduced additional evidence both oral and documentary. Thereafter, the l. r. a. a. , on reappreciation of the evidence on record before the respondent 2-land tribunal and further on its own record, had passed the impugned order whereby it reversed the order passed by the respondent 2-land tribunal granting occupancy right or in other words to say that in passing the impugned orders the l. ra. a. , had rejected the claim of the father of the petitioner. The said order is now under challenge before this court in the hands of the tenant. That the subject land originally belonged to one sangappa neelakantappa potdar and consequent to his death the subject land was maintained by the court of wards.