A R SOMASHEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order made on the application filed under Rule 9 of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority Rules framed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Appellate Authority rejected the application virtually following the principles applicable to an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code. The scope of Rule 9 of the Rules has been explained by this Court in Gangamma v Kundalapady Venkappa (198 - Kar.L.J : I.L.R. 1988 Kar. 1480) to the effect that the Appellate Authority should liberally construe the said rules and enable the parties to adduce additional evidence unless the conduct of the parties disentitles them to such relief. I am of the view that in such matters the Appellate Authority should freely allow such applications considering the history of the legislation and the background in which power of appeal was conferred on the appellate authority, particularly when the Land Tribunals were conducting their proceedings without following proper rules of procedure and with utmost arbitrariness. In those circumstances this Court had to set aside their orders in writ petitions and remand the matters to the Land Tribunals over and over again. In that context the State felt that there was a need to provide an apppeal against orders of the Land Tribunals without power of remand, so that when an appeal is preferred before the Appellate Authority the Parties are allowed to adduce fresh evidence that has not been led before the original authority. Considering this aspect, the scheme under the Act and the Rules there-under is entirely different from the one available under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. THIS aspect will have to be borne in mind by the Appellate Authorities in such matters. The petitioner did not file his application in the light of what is stated above and hence the appellate authority did not consider the matter from that angle. In that view of the matter, notwithstanding the order under revision refusing the permission to adduce additional evidence, it would be open to the petitioner to file another application and equally open to the Appellate Authority to consider such an application and pass appropriate orders in the light of this order and in accordance with law. Revision petition is thus rejected. Petition rejected.