xx ‘ms: I~IiG!~I coum or xanrmrmm AT A’
DATED was THE 130- my on :5}: % T T
BEFORE
THE HOBPBLE MR..;x3s3f1cE i{A ‘
WRIT
BETWEEN; _ i ‘ %
1 B R ‘
Sjo
R/o ” . A_ ‘
Kymjga1TT.-mm _ .
– .m.a
‘v V’ i..42″¥1js, s[o’iia’a”:’e’ B R Gangnna gowfi
A 1.»; ” Gawda 3.9
V’ ‘ « “’23_~3y;~ai::’a]c lam: B R Gmgannaciawda
1 I 8.6
~ a[o%BRG%mGawda
“‘d)
” 62yrs,.w/ohmBRGa@naGoIma
— filanzr/omallaghattmliasahaflobli
Kt%l’I’a1nk,’i’umkurl)§atrict.
(WSfiCMRmhmam&LS Mfl
V thc? mm Na.LRA 90/1939 End bdasm the mad at-mm
~, ‘Appa&teAut!1tn:ity,’l’wtzr,Tt@m’Dist.
– R4? 4 T? Shmt
‘ ” Temple
‘ asxmmaammvfiu-R-2m4
m;:~s:iRxz1m:,ncG9,AmmR2m4
R-2 «-41% must R-3 ‘nenlyL.12 ofR-2
” R—4’5 Pi’shokieu’ofR~3)
. pfiamaandmmnmmsawam
/L
C ‘ x
_,__,W.-
flnbl%mg V
ogggg’
this writ pcfitirm up was
by the Law whnxcby the
1m nmmai £*§m’by thc pctitimcr no
mm bearing Sy.No.43
% H ! ., % .13
in Kmngal’ *:+;a. ‘.;.%._x,¢. % E’.afla~1’_ ‘ A’ the Ram No.7 fihd by the
r mam oecufi right; in amour
-of am per 0111:: am 18-ll-1976. Th:
dmmpa the mar: (mint in
2 11989] 19% an the gonad that the Txzibumal has not
the mamfi mov%m of xm& Land
‘ Rc£amaActsmRu1es. 1’1ac:m,i meaaadwsitpe-anon
5
_ N
V _flM_W.
Egg.-.,»»=**””” ‘ x
$3 to be anon-.~d by ordcr dated 21-2–l..983_ _A
rejected form No.7 filed by the ,’ Vt
hcmin film! on 13~–s~
19%»: and Tzibunal for
evidcncc. On the
mm No.7Afi1g_:’§i by by its oxdnr dated 7-3-1939.
% Appeaaac Authority, “man in LRA
_ the Jcmnfi Land Rcimm Act was
Act No.18[l99O by atmhw ‘ Land Rdnma
V V’ Antbmity. immn, the pctmaner filed C.P
‘ V’:’1v4:.1uef3814/1993 bciomc this Court unda’ Rule 17 of the
‘ Rul$awhich@cIanbcalloIwedby
ad”
5 9- ¥
converting’ the ma’ men: may this writ pcm:aon° ° % K
.’ pail.
3. It ia argued
that dw1ssal’ ‘ of the petitioner
than appeal is mm in the
°°”°’W %%%% ‘ a mum mm the
em a”lgw5’fs:z-.1 nocacaamy rent he the mdkvrd.
_
A L that mcostls for the ym 1966-67
the pctifionerwm enema. Furthczr, it ‘E ugaed
X %
% ‘ la in this case. It is mgued em in the am’: for
.2?
– ,1
dccmaosn’ ‘ in thc came af B V §g’g.VVA;g»:-..;{VV’:§§:(f)’Y’Ai:’PA ” V
(me 1994 KAR. 2505)
‘In a Suit~iGs:_ .ix:_iutx:%
aionc, tho ‘ms not
xeleva-111:, but in as to
‘the some: of
[ms=::w:’ bm firm orpewm :-
a suit far
pcndcacy ofthc suit. A
” pers:.;.1v;Vinp¢%siomcmheevicmd<mly
under of law anti even a
like mmnot be cvicued by frame, he
to be in poeaeubn mad he can
the intcxfcxcncc with his possc%
"poasew1omofapc:1wn,oen;ainly,iwwinbe
cntifledtn@pmachthcCom1:safLawand
prayforth:tc1icfof%c1:iontopa'oicct
hispasscwnammdaaotlzoinmmcwiththc
waaeothmwiscthmunclcr&uepuo%of
law. Section6ofthcSpecficRcIid"Act
aiso indicates that a person who is
wmngfuny , can get back
;(a
is in no way aflsucm thc rights afthc 5: &
the yam' 1966-67 onwmds. _Thc
challcngd bcforc the Land for
removal own: name oramfitfimr, –
that under Section 133 am
an mm mm ma ma.
thmefim: to deny the
antics The cvilicncc of the
record or r®:.s that he is m wanna of
1-3-1974andthaca1’tcrma
by tax pchflonczr’ rczymg on the mam’ of
Inthisbchalf,
has on the (1% of am com in 1973(1)
359 wmm it has been back! that
‘Undcr Sccfian 4815(4), Land
Reforms Act, the Trfiimal has to verify
what had been submimd by the petitioner
inForm–7inthcnmnm:rdcemcdju3tby
i,;:”..’° ,,
C-*:’__ A
it. Such ‘ ‘ ‘ mama
looking into that pahmi columns u _.__
mcords of rghta md _: ”
Soc.133 a1’ttmI.am1Resm:ae;_Ac:,-‘1964T._’; *
Scc.1l2, ‘
that a of
cntwatgdhzit. V _ ‘ .,
Act. 1964 to go
in is entries in
‘.53 Trmunal
to p inn) these
the night offical
that 3.3 fiitved pmty by
4; diam: Land Revenue Act, 1964
” 4, other hmd, lwmd HOG? far mspendentd
A prior m Karfi Lara Rdinms Act came
A the am: peuuomr mm ms area a suit
we injunction’ ‘ am” at mapandcnia-3 & 4 winch’ came an
/? n
in
V! ,:;y’/_
by an-. pmm-z«.»»~ ~
1!
is aupcxviaozy mad the aw Com! is not expected
with the &al ardms passed by the ~ U
suit find what thc 4.
findings by the Land "mung! counsel an the
mapondggmes mpmed in 1975(2)
i(ar.L.J gm 460, Am l9′?6 so 1435, AIR
V . 1′ sec 193 mad 2003(6) sec 675.
the lemma counsel far we pathos’ .
& k Land zaibuna: in jusflfied in rejecting form No.7
22
1966-67, he is culfivathg the
respect ofthc land Sy.No.43
a suit in 0.330.390; on
the ground that am asfl4VA with
his pemc%’ In a suit
1 I dmgof the phmfl. m
pmvvc =-=–:»»-.–~–n @ enjoyment of me
suit mad is in his fivom: in
the inamfir – _, % pzaanm med’ m prom that
In’: the mapondcnt in respect cf
4.’-.zn me sax!’ smt,’ it was cinema that in the
(sf the ycar 1966457, the amt: of the
fm ta in the said suit dmiod the ease mains and
the phinfifihaas not examined my ‘mdcpcndcnt witness.
In view’ ofthc fict that 13% ofthc pcutxmcz” ‘ ‘ K
mtcr1mnc¢i’ a doubt with’ y} 2 ~.
by an-, an: wpcllatc
or _?m° the Land Rcvumc Act
and truc wad omtnct. It is mlcvnnt
.. ….. .. t to R Act Va
am the Civil Court during 1968 under the
gafic entries in ms: anegai in pahani, rm fiaihd ‘m
pt to pmvc that he is the culture’ mrofthc 935:! had
% is in posa%’ of the same. The gcnmncness’ arr
. of the mi! cntrica hm not hccn pwved by the
E7
\_’.>” fl.w,,,.,.
WNW»
2
pctitioncr as true and correct. Mme an-‘Erica éf ‘
rights is not t to gmnt
the The question
I-mmcd,-ate], 13-301’ in fines? a ts.
In the instant mac, thck anayed as
defendants in gmggnm that they
have and they have not
pmaucga that he was a lawful
tam-mt & 4 and the petitions: hm
in suppmt of his case. Thcmixc, me
_ :3f1t£:nnd tobythckmnadootmstziftarthcpctzhoncr”
‘~: érz:Vx§ot1iz$lcappli¢:abictothcfictsofthccmconhmd. if
pcfitionar ww in lawful po%m and cnjaymcnt
“”‘v9f–i:l1ch§ndinq11cs- uana.saec:mmt,r.xcwouuham%d’
‘ ” thcauth0er0ftkmoo:’dof1’ight3–Ex.P-1. ‘!’h’aComtundca’