G S GANGAMMA Vs. KUNDALAPADY VENKAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of LA.No.IV filed in LRAA.No.35-77-78 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Kodagu, wherein the petitioner had prayed for issue of summons to the village accountant of Peraje village to produce the original RTC register and to speak about the entries made therein etc. The Appellate Authority observed that the petitioner has not explained as to why she did not summon the village accountant and the RTC book before the Tribunal. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order rejecting her I.A.No.II.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent contended that a single revision petition challenging the orders on I.A.Nos.II and IV is not maintainable and there ought to have been two revision petitions. This is a technical plea. The trial court has passed a common order on I.A.Nos. 2 and 4. The revisional power of this Court is under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, wherein this Court may suo motu exercise the power of revision, apart from being invoked by a party concerned. Therefore, without reference to this contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, I have gone into the question on merits. However, I find the order made on LA.No. II is unassailable.

(3.) Under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act formerly there was no appeal forum provided against the orders of the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal consisted of the Asst. Commissioner and other nominated members, who may or may not have any legal qualification. The parties were not permitted to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Land Tribunal. The parties had to present themselves then causes. A large number of litigants, having regard to the nature of the dispute involved, are necessarily drawn from rural areas and a substantial section thereof are either illiterate or ignorant; at any rate, these litigants will not be in a position to assert themselves before the members of the Land Tribunal. Judicial notice of the fact also may be taken that several thousands of orders of the Land Tribunals in the State were set aside by this Court because the Tribunals failed to follow the procedure prescribed by law.