MARIYAPPA Vs. V R RAMAKRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Land Tribunal dated 20th of November, 1986, the Complainant herein filed Writ Petition Number 19658 of 1991, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide his Order dated 4-9-1996.

(2.) THE case of the Complainant was that he had become occupancy tenant in respect of Sy. No. 7 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas of land excluding the kharab, situated at Hosahalli Gollarapalya, Yeshwanthpura Hoobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The Land Tribunal granted him the occupancy rights, which was impugned by the land owners in Writ Petition Number 514/78. After finding that no valid notice had been served upon the owner, this Court quashed the entire order passed in favour of the Complainant and remitted the case back for fresh consideration. After affording the parties opportunity to put forth their contentions, the Chairman of the Land Tribunal vide his order dated 9-2-1986 passed an order in favour of the complainant holding that the entire extent of land was to be registered in his favour. The other Members of the Tribunal did not agree with the Chairman and expressed the opinion that as the Complainant was cultivating an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas of land, he was entitled to be registered as occupancy tenant to that extent only. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Complainant in Writ Petition Number 31922/92. The impugned order was quashed by this Court and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal with direction to decide the same afresh after reassessment of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. Consequently, the Land Tribunal passed an order holding that the Complainant was in possession to the extent of 3 acres 20 guntas only, with the result, that his claim with respect to the land measuring 3 acres was rejected. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged in Writ Petition Number 19658/91, which was dismissed on 4th of September, 1996 as noticed earlier. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, the Complainant filed W. A. No. 8404/96, which was admitted by this Court on 8th of October, 1996. On the I. A. filed for grant of stay, the Court directed that during the pendency of the Appeal, the land in dispute shall not be alienated. As according to the Complainant the land was alienated by the Respondents in violation of the Court directions, he filed the present Contempt Petition against the Respondents.

(3.) THE Respondents were charged under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) on 4th of November, 1997. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.