M Narayanasway vs The Land Tribunal on 24 August, 2010

_ ThI»S..EIppea% is fiied by first respondent in W.P.37’802/200}.

IIbe’ing.._a§ggrieved by the order of the ieamed smgle Judge dated

OOO”–«V.AVi{‘.’7″.2{)O8 wherein the ieamed single Judge in the writ petition

W

filed by the respondent No.2 herein has set aside the order of

the Land Tribunai, wherein occupancy rights was conf’errfe.d”i–ivVn

favour of the appeilant and remanded the nwatterrt-to

Tribunal for fresh consideration of _th.e,__4appii’ca”t’i–o.n.V”o£’_%.rhve_V

appellant herein–respondent No.1 in the pieititioin,:xy=;}’;=gh”*::a:

direction to the Tribunal to ‘co’iisziderA’v-the. abp;3i.icati.oni lnvd

accordance with law and in c_ompiian_ce’~of’t_he d.ir’ecti_on_issued in

the order.

2. The material facts ofithe. jcasey«i’icece”s_sa’i*%,r” For the disposal

of this appeal are

The appeliant’li7ie’re:in dgfii§:d~…_forrn No.7 seeking confermeni:
of occupancy ri’ghtsVin’- Survey No.3/1, measuring 1
acre 2 guyntasi, Sur\?ey_V”l\’io.3/1A, measuring 2 acres 10 guntas
s.ituated~._in (_Z””iiioi:_ij<a«hValii viliage claiming that appiicant was the

tenantotggithe7"_siaid:;'iand on 1.3.1974, therefore', entitled to

vV'.;«g\cori_ferme"n–t o.f:.ocicup_ancy rights. 'i"he Tribunai had originaily

the application filed by the appeliant herein by an order

"i_::la'_te_d'._V:t8.'f£1.1986. Being aggrieved by the said order writ

ipeititi-on was filed by the appeliant herein and the matter was

*9;

remanded to the Tribunai and after the remand, the Tribunal has

proceeded to hold that appiicarit is cultivating the land irr*res.._oe–ct

of which occupancy rights is claimed and

conferment, accordingly aliowed the ai_3_p.l.ic__atioréMfdr–:’occ’L;ija.ric’~,4_V

rights. Respondent No.2 herein filed

that enquiry has not been held as”,oe–r_Ruie’v-1i7 of tfheA’v«il{‘a-rnartaka v T’

Land Reforms Rules, 1974. {The o,rd_f:eVVr~,i_s’VV;_1vot order
and proceedings is not g with law and
therefore, the order co’;-wfterrirfrg” in favour of
the appeliant her.e.iri..i,i’s set ias’idVe’.W;Tl1e learned singie
Judge, after TOT thfi’ i3€3ftie5 by 89
order dated that the Land Triburiai,
Chikkabaliapur, in accordance with Rule 17
ofthe Larid”R.eform’s.,_V_Ptriles: and the order impugned is not a
,V:I4v’t..,_Qnly refers to the evidence adduced by the

partie’s._a”nd. ilvi.’t’§2.,ou’t,:’iassigning valid reasons, the Tribunal has

“oroceeded’– to v–__oass”””the orders and therefore, the order is liabie to

asi_de and accordingly, the iearned single 3udge set aside

i.or’d_e’r’ of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the

VfLa:nd-Tribunal for passing fresh orders in accordance with law

was

and the appeiiant and respondent No.2 herein were perrnitted to

fiie authenticated documents in support of their respect.ijve:’jcl_a’i–m

within four months from the date of receipt of

order and accordingiy disposed of th.e…..w_rit Sewing

aggrieved by the said order passed by ;t.he1’_iea’irned_ “singié

dated 1.7.2088, the appeiiant has’tiiedg.thisA’appeai.i’.i .

3. We have heard the iearne”d,cou_nsei’*for”i.hetappeiiant

and the iearned counsei ap’p:e’a.ring.i’AVfo_r:Vth.e~.i:e~g.ai representatives
of respondent No.2 and the vgievarnehdg C:;ove.rnrt_i;e.n’t Advocate for

respondent No.1.

4. Learned cou’:~*.S*e.i_:i:forg”tt3Aé’r–*3iJ’peiiant submitted that though
the Chairman ‘signed the impugned order on
31_v.V8.20O”1;”t’tie snémi_».§’i§ ot: the Tribunai have singed the order
is only a technica! defect as the Tribunal

has c’onsi”d_eiréd°’i_nV__d’e;ta’il the materiai produced by the parties and

given”–spec’if-iVc”” finding that appeiiant was the tenant of the

respect of which occupancy rights was sought and the

is entitled to the occupancy rights and parties couid

be made to suffer for the fauit of the members of the

we

Tribunal and he also submitted that the Tribunal has assigned

valid reasons for conferring occupancy rights ln favour.Vof”it_he

appellant. in support of this, reliance was placed _

passed by this Court in case of 3OHl\l USOUZA

av LRs v/s. VEEAYA BANK & oras. repA_orte.dAzfivnlrfilsligl

4048, wherein the learned singlessudge ‘ol’._ this

that when the matter is remanded four*f_r;esh dilsposialv’:onlfteclmical
grounds for the reasons sta’te¢i’j,«- lear’rled».l..lASi’ngie Judge was of
the conformant view that the matter is
wholly unnecessary’:alrirlillhrhggirernaindwoirder».rrgiguires review and

acco rd i ng ly, reviewed the orcl rei~.1a rid [

5. Learned “for legal representatives of
respondent No.V2r._s%ubrnit.ted.. that learned single Judge has held
thatgthe ensguir’y hasV”not,l_:;e_en conducted in accordance with Rule

_LanVd’«.R’e.l”o*rijjs Rules as judgment is not signed by the

Chairi”‘n’a:rj—.,and’V’é.t’he’A’g::’rnernbers on the same day and further

Vfsubmits tuhazt””vtghe’border is not a speaking order though it is

.1-.l.e’rigthy,’itgisvlonly cursory of the arguments, the averrnents of

itor”utheffappiilcalnts made in the affidavit and written submission and

no reasons are assigned to come to the conclusion that the

applicant is entitled to conferment of occupancy rights.

6. Learned Government Advocate argued in st¥_pp()’rtt:of”dthe’

order passed by the learned single Judgef’ ”

7. We have given careful consid_eration_ to the”cojp..t¢_nti_on Void;

the learned counsel appearing for theiplgartiges Van-ciy_VV:5c’rutiViaised the
material on record. The ma.tt§:i=ial clearly show
that though the order of the..l;§–ng\g\i//lfaéibt’.iAnVal”l’:~i’s—“tieclared to be
unanimous, the on 318.2008
and the members on 2.9.2008 and
therefore when pronounced on 31.8.2008 the
members have and as per Rule 17 of the
Land Reforgfns Rules vtsecvition 34 of the Land Revenue Act, the
pronounced and signed by the Chairman

and .o’_n_’th;ei”‘same day and further, the said ground is

the obly V-ground upon which the order passed by the Land

is setaside. On perusal of the order passed by the

iearned single Judge has held that from page 1 to

of the order, the contention of the parties has been

“tat

cuffed out and without considering the same in the proper

perspective the order has been passed conferring the ocee»-pipainpcy

rights in favour of the appeiiant herein and on

order we do not find any ground to differ «.\/iei:/ii

taken by the Eearned singie Eudge. decisifkan-,rei.ie’d4’i;i=;f>je._;7

the teamed counsel for the appeiEa4_nt isioot appiifiapbiepptoil the_:”;

present Case. Accordingiy, we hoivdfihat ap’p–e.ai”is devoid of
merits and pass the foi%owin’g_’_.o:%i?dei–fV; . ”

8. Appeal is is ‘divvrected to dispose
of the appiicationafresh,’:’–_Vsti’«i§–ti_§/-v..isf}’-~’ac:£:ordanCe with Eaw within
six months fr”orfi ‘th.eii,datéf0Fiawtfopy of this judgment or
production ofvzcertified.Copy’.Vof»«th’i’s.to;.:der, whichever is earéiei”.

Sd/-‘
Judge

1a’aq”é

‘ :»V<;'»–i V