DHAKALU Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners who claim to be the tenants of the lands in question bearing R. Sy. Nos. 12/3, 12/4A 12/5, 12/19, 12/20, 12/21-A, 12/48, 12/13, 12/15, 12/21-B, 12/6, 12/9 and 12/16 of Mavinkatti village near Sambra, District Belgaum. have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Belgaum in No. LRM/Sambra/ SR. 62 - 62-A dated 6th December, 1976, rejecting their application filed in Form No. 7 for being registered as occupants of the lands in question. After the filing W.P. 591/77. Kar.L.J.] of an application in Form No. 7, tha petitioners also filed an application under S.48-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, hareinifter referred to as the Act, for temporary injunction. While considering that application, the Tribunal has entertained some affidavits and has held the spot inspection. During the course of the spot inspection, it has recorded joint statements of several persons. On the basis of the affidavits and the joint statements of several persons and the entries in the record of rights, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish their lawful possession of the lands in question and consequently it not only rejected the application for temporary injunction, but it also rejected Form No. 7 itself.

(2.) The contentions of Sri Goulay, the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the main application filed in Form No. 7 while rejecting the application filed for grant of temporary indjunction that the Tribunal has not followed the prescribed procedure as per S. 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act while holding an enquiry ; therefore, it was submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal be quashed and the case be remanded for fresh enquiry.

(3.) The records of the case have been received in this case. On going through the records of the case, it is clear that the Tribunal has not held the enquiry as required by S- 31 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It has taken the joint statements of several persons referred to in the order and those statements are found at pages 111 and 113 of the records of the Tribunal. The recording of the joint statement is not permissible and such statement cannot at all be said to be the statement made by a particular person. Further the affidavits cannot be taken into account inasmuch as the same would be opposed to the provisions of S. 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, inasmuch as, as per the said secUon'the officer conducting the enquiry is required to record the statement in his own handwriting.