H P ABDUL KHADAR Vs. HAMMAD BEARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the owner to challenge the order dated 15-9-1989, in appeal No. Lra/h/70/86-man, passed by the land reforms appellate authority, mangalore. In passing the impugned Order, the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal of the revision petition had confirmed the order of the land tribunal dated 14-3-1986 in No. Lrt 949/84-85, granting right of ownership to the respondent 2 under Section 38 of the Land Reforms Act.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri b. l. acharya and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents 1 and 2, Sri k. Chandrashekhar. The respondent 3, land tribunal and the respondent 4, state are represented by the learned high court government pleader, Smt. K. R. Meena kumari.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are as hereunder: that the revision petitioner herein had filed a suit in original suit No. 177 of 1980 on 29-7-1980 as against the contesting respondents 1 and 2 for their ejectment, before the court of munsiff at karkal; that the respondents 1 and 2 had thereafter filed form 2-a under Section 38 of the Land Reforms Act (henceforth in brief as 'act') for grant of ownership right in respect of 5 cents of land in survey No. 35/15 of haleangadi village; that the land tribunal registered a case in the matter of claim of the respondents 1 and 2 in two different cases in no. lrt:948-949:84-85; that the land tribunal did not record any evidence and based on spot inspection, the respondent 3, land tribunal while rejecting the claim of the respondent 1 had granted ownership right to the respondent 2. It appears that the said order passed by the land tribunal was by the majority opinion of the members excluding the chairman. that, having been aggrieved thereto by the said order granting ownership right to the respondent 2, the revision petitioner herein had filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority having found that the land tribunal did not record the evidence of both sides, had recorded the evidence of the parties before it. When the revision petitioner had examined through his power of attorney holder, pw-1 and examined four other witnesses, the respondents 1 and 2 examined themselves and the respondent 2 examined herself and examined yet another witness by name, bhoja poojari in support of her case before the appellate authority; that the appellate authority on appreciation of the evidence on its records in the absence of the evidence on the records of the land tribunal had passed the impugned Order, whereby it had conferred the ownership right to the respondent 2 in respect of the subject land. having been aggrieved thereto the revision petitioner is before this court.