KRISHNAPPA POOJARY Vs. N V RANGAPPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition filed as against the order dated 31-3-1990 passed in l. r. a. a. No. 125 of 1988 by the additional land reforms appellate authority, puttur, in passing whereof, the appellate authority while setting aside the order dated 27-5-1988 passed by the land tribunal, sullia, granting occupancy right to the petitioner, conferred the occupancy right in the name of the respondent 1.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri g. Balakrishna shastry, the learned counsel, Smt. S. n. sudha, appearing along with Sri g. s. vishweshwara for the respondent 1 and the learned additional government advocate, Sri s. Mahesh, appearing for the respondent 3, land tribunal, sullia. I have perused the case records together with the records of the land tribunal secured by the registry.

(3.) THE facts of the case relevant for our purpose have to be narrated i a brief, the same are as hereunder. that the respondent 1 had filed form No. 7 setting out 22 extents in different survey numbers. In the said form No. 7, in the remarks column, he had stated that items No. 1 to 12 were in his possession, whereas items No. 13 to 22 were under the occupation of the tenants. he had further stated therein that even at the time of taking the property on lease from the original landlord, Sri gopalakrishna bhat about 50 years ago, items No. 13 to 22 were under the occupation of the 'other tenants'. That application of the respondent 1 was filed on 26-8-1974. In the second page of form No. 7, it was also stated that the commissioner report was also accompanied the form No. 7. that, the petitioner herein had filed form No. 7 on 4-5-1977 setting out his claim in respect of two items of the land they are 50 cents in s. No. 217/1c and 80 cents in s. No. 217/2b of aivarnadu village, sullia taluk. that, the respondent 3, the land tribunal, commonly considered the claims of the petitioner on the one side and the respondent 1 on the other and granted occupancy right restricting the same to 76 cents in s. No. 217/2a. Having been aggrieved thereto, the respondent 1 had resorted to a writ petition before this court. That, this court while allow- ing the writ petition, remitted the matter to the land tribunal for fresh disposal with a direction that both the claims be clubbed together and the matter be disposed of by the land tribunal. That, this court in so remitting the matter had also given liberty to the land tribunal to depute a surveyor to survey the subject land, in dispute in the presence of the parties. that the land tribunal did depute a surveyor with due notice to the parties. When the petitioner had participated in the proceedings, the respondent 1 did not do so for the reason best known to him. I find the sketch with remarks of the surveyor dated 20-4-1998 at page 118 of the records of the land tribunal. I also find 'that with the report of the surveyor, the land tribunal held the proceedings on three different dates, they are 22-4-1988, 6-5-1988 and 20-5-1988. Finally, the land tribunal had granted the occupancy right to the petitioner herein in passing the impugned order. being aggrieved thereby, the respondent 1 had resorted to an appeal in l. r. a. a. No. 125 of 1988 before the additional land reforms appellate authority, puttur, to challenge. the grant of occupancy right to the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the appellate authority finally allowed the appeal of the respondent 1 in passing the considered order thereon on 31-3-1990. In "passing the same, the appellate authority while reversing the order of the grant of occupancy right to the petitioner, it had conferred the occupancy right in respect of the subject land to the respondent 1. The petitioner, tenant, being aggrieved thereto is before this court in filing the instant revision petition.