SAROJINI SHEDTHI Vs. PUTTA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'The 1961 Act'), respondent No.1 filed an application before the appointed date for conferment of occupancy rights in the lands specified in his application and detailed in para 1 of the writ petition, inter-alia pleading that he was in occupation of those lands as on 1-3-1974 as a tenant of the petitioner. Before the Land Tribunal the petitioner-landholder pleaded that respondent No.l was not her tenant and that he was work ng on the lands as her h red labourer. In support of their respective cases, the parties placed oral and documentary evidence before the Land Tribunal. Before the Land Tribunal recorded the evidence, it also inspected the lands and had drawn up its inspection report. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed be for it and the inspection notes, the Land Tribunal by its order dt. 25-8-1976 (EExhibit A') accepted the case of respondent No.1 and has granted him occupancy rights in the lands in question. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challerred the said order of the Land Tribunal under Art 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) On 23-1-1976 the Land Tribunal ev dently on an application made by respondent No.1, had granted an exparte order of temporary injunction, restraining the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful p session of lands by respondent No.1. In WP.No.2121 of 1976 which is still pending the petitioner challenged the sa d order of temporary injunction and also the constitutional validity of certain provisions of 'the 1981 Act'. In that writ petition, the petitioner sought for stay of the operation of the order of the Land Tribunal granting exparte temporaly injunction in favour of respondent No.1 and the provisions of 'the 1961 Act' impugned therein. Cn 9-3-1976 M K.Srinivasa Iyengar J, granted an order of stay in the following terms :: WP.3694 of 1977.

(3.) Shri P.Viswanatha Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the order of the Land Tribunal is vitiated by reason of personal bias of respondent No.3, a member of the Land Tribunal who has participated in the proceedings and decided the case. In sub-para(e) of para 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that respondent No.3 was a candidate for the Karnataka Legislative Assembly during the year 1957 and 1962 from Bramhavar Constituency and that her husband and other family members had opposed his candidature and had supported his rival candidate who had contested oh Congress party ticket and therefore he has been nursing a grievance against the petitioner, her husband and other family members. In his return, respondent No.3 has asserted that when the elections in 1957 and 1962 were held to Bramhavar Constituency, Yadthari village where the petitioner, her husband and other members of her family are living, was not part of Bramhavar Constituency and therefore the petitioner, her husband and the other members of her family either opposing him or supporting his rival candidate would hot arise. In the subsequent elections held in the year 1967, respondent No.3 states that he did not contest the elections. In clear and emphatic terms, respondent No.3 has denied the allegations of personal bias attributed by the petitioner against him. In answer to the assertions made by respondent No.3, the petitioner has not filed any reply and has not produced any material before this Court to accept her plea of personal bias by respondent No.3. Shri P.Viswanatha Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner, did not dispute the fact that Yadthadi village was not part of Bhamhavar Constituency when elections were held in the years 1957 and 1962. When the village in which the petitioner and her husband reside are not part of the Constituency, in the normal circumstances to say that they have worked against respondent No.3 and therefore he is out to wreak vengeance against them is Somewhat difficult to accept and act. It is well to remember that respondent No.3 is also in the position of a Judge. In my view, the petitioner without any justification and material has alleged bias by respondent No.3 believing any stick is a good stick to void the order of the Land Tribunal. I, therefore, hold that there is no substance in the plea of bias made by the petitioner against respondent No.3.