JUDGMENT
Venkatachala, J.
1. By consent of learned counsel, these appeals were treated as having been posted for hearing and we heard them.
2. These two appeals are from the common order of Bhimiah, J., allowing Writ Petitions Nos. 18366 and 18367 of 1979. Respondent-3 therein has presented these appeals. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to according to their respective positions in the writ petitions.
3. The petitioner had claimed in his application under Section 48A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as ‘the Act!) before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) occupancy right in respect of 20 guntas of land with tamarind trees forming the Southern portion of the land in Survey No. 42 of Malagondanahalli village, Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluk. That claim was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 21-6-1978 in case Nor. LRF 3102/75-76 and 1605/75-76. That order, in so far it related to the rejection of the petitioner’s claim, had been impugned in the writ petitions. The learned single Judge, who allowed the writ petitions, had not merely quashed that portion of the order, but has also directed the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights of that land in favour of the petitioner.
4. In these appeals, the main grievance of Shri C. B. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant (Respondent-3 in the writ petition), was that though it was open to the learned single Judge to have quashed the order of the Tribunal it was not open to him to re-appreciate the evidence, as if he was deciding an appeal, record his finding on such evidence and direct the Tribunal to grant occupancy right in respect of the aforementioned 20 guntas of land to the petitioner, on the basis of such finding. However, he submitted that he would have no objection for the case being remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the application under Section 48A(1) Of the Act in so far it concerns the disputed land provided the Tribunal is free to decide the matter without being influenced by the views expressed by the learned single Judge on the merits of that application.
5. Shri Ravivarma, Kumar, learned counsel for respondent-1 herein, was not able to show any reason against not accepting the submission of Shri Srinivasan.
6. We are of the view that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not be justified in reappreciating the evidence in the case as if it is an appellate Court and expressing its conclusions on questions of fact.
7. In the result, we allow these appeals partly, delete that portion of the order of the learned single Judge by which he directed the Tribunal to grant occupancy right in respect of 20 guntas of land to the petitioner. However, we make it clear that the Tribunal, while deciding the application under See. 48A (1) of the Act in so far it concerns 20 guntas of land with tamarind trees, forming the Southern portion of the land in Survey No. 42 of Malagondanahalli village, Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluk, shall not be influenced by the observations in the order of the learned single Judge as regards the merits of that application.
8. In the circumstances of these appeals, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
9. allowed partly.