FRANCIS REBELLO Vs. K VIMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner-tenant questioning the correctness of the order dated 10/01/2003 in proceedings No. LRT 28,383/81-82 vide Annexureg" on the file of the Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluk, rejecting his claim for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 52/2a1a measuring 0-10 cents situate at Alape village, Mangalore Taluk, has presented the instant petition.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he has filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 52/2a1a measuring 0-10 cents situate at Alape Village. The said application filed by the petitioner came up for consideration before the Land Tribunal and the same was rejected. The petitioner questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal by filing Writ Petition before this court. The said Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and the order passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for considering the same afresh. After remand, the Land Tribunal after hearing both sides through their counsel and after evaluation of the original records and the material available on the file, has rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of the admission made by the petitioner that he has not filed any application seeking for registration of occupancy rights expect stating that he has been in possession of the land in question since 75 years. In view of rejection of his claim, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by Sri S. S. Sripathy, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Land Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiry in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and Rules and has given a finding contrary to the material available on records. To substantiate his submission, he has taken me through the records made available by the Government Pleader and the report issued by the Office of Tahsildar cum Secretary of the Land Tribunal stating that the petitioner has filed an application on 28/06/1976 and the Tribunal without referring to the said material, ought not to have recorded a finding that the petitioner has not filed an application for grant of occupancy rights and further he pleaded to point out that since several years the petitioner is paying taxes to the Gram Panchayat and is subsequently paying taxes to the Corporation and is very much residing in the suit schedule lands. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the Tribunal nor has conducted proper enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules read with Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act and the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is liable to be set aside.