PUTTA THAYAMMA Vs. KARAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter coming up for orders in regard to vacating the stay, the main revision petition itself is taken up for hearing and after hearing counsel for both sides is disposed of by the following order.

(2.) Petitioner is the respondent before the Appellate Authority for Mysore District constituted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Respondent Karagaiah is the appellant. He was aggrieved by the order made by the Land Tribunal and therefore preferred an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal refusing to grant occupancy rights in respect of part of Sy No. 66 of Senapathihalli village, So sale hobli, T. Narasipur Taluk. He made an interlocutory application seeking to protect his possession of 1 acre 09 guntas in the said survey number as he continued to be in occupation of the same for the past 13 years. In support of his possession and cultivation, he produced R.T.C. extracts for the years 1970-71 upto 1975-76. He further alleged that pursuant to the order of the Land Tribunal respondent tried to dispossess him and therefore he prayed for temporary injunction. The revision petitioner-respondent was given an opportunity to file her objections. Objections were filed interalia contending that possession was not given to Karagaiah but to Siddegowda in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal as a Receiver and therefore Karagaiah was never in possession of the land. But the Appellate Authority has not acceded to that contention.

(3.) It has recorded a finding that the petitioner's statement and the mahazar relied upon is not reliable and cannot be acted npon. It has recorded a finding that the appellant before the appellate authority is in possession and has protected, pending disposal of the appeal, that possession.