THIMMAMMA Vs. SIDDARANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Viswanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner-owner, very vehemently argued that the evidence of the petitioner's daughter should have been considered by the Appellate Authority in the light of the entries made in the Record of Rights. According to the learned Counsel, since the first respondent has not cross-examined the said witness, the statement in the said deposition should have been accepted as proved.

(2.) In W.P. No. 8230/79 this Court had remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal on the ground that the first respondent herein had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness examined on behalf of the present petitioner-owner. After the remand once again the Land Tribunal considered the matter and by a cryptic order dated 25-6-1982 allowed the application of the first respondent. This order was again challenged and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority by this Court, on the constitution of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Before the Appellate Authority the claimant (1st respondent herein) adduced fresh evidence by examining several neighbours as witnesses on his behalf. The Appellate Authority has considered the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the entries in the record of rights were conflicting. As to the evidence tendered by Puttamma (on the first occasion), I find that it contains only a bare assertion that the 1st respondent was not cultivating the land in question. She stated that entry in the pahani proved about the self-cultivation of the land by the owner ; she further stated that, the 1st respondent sought to purchase the land on the death of the owner (father of the witness) and the offer was not accepted; hence he filed the application in Form No. 7. The Appellate Authority has found that the entry in pahani showed the land to be fallow during the period 1963 to 1973. If so, the electricity bills produced by the petitioner for having used power to irrigate the land were unreliable. The Appellate Authority found that during the relevant period, the owner (husband of the petitioner herein) was a Revenue Inspector and thus had sufficient influence to get the requisite entries made in the Revenue Records. Appellate Authority found that there was no basis for the alterations made in the Record of Rights in favour of the said owner, for the years 1970-71 to 1972-73. The basis for these alterations were not explained by the petitioner at all.