Tarun Chatterjee , J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.This is an appeal arising out of
judgment and order dated 26th June, 2000 passed by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in L.R.R.P. No.2339/1990. An application was
filed in the year 1977 by Hanumappa - the predecessor-in-interest of the
contesting respondents, before the Land Tribunal Ranebennur for
conferment of occupancy rights, which was disposed of in the following
"Applicant present in Court. Amongst
the opponent, 1st opponent and the mother are present. Matter was
enquired and the statements were recorded. The relevant records were
perused. The Applicant was earlier cultivating the land on Koru lavani
and thereafter i.e. 4 to 5 years back the said land was given to the
The Opponent who were present have
admitted the position. Village Reg.Sy.No. Area Revenue Mastur 69 9-21
Since the applicant has stated
before the tribunal that he hasgiven up the cultivation of the land the
application of the Applicant is rejected."
About seven years thereafter, a writ
petition was filed by him before the High Court challenging this order
of the Land Tribunal Ranebennur. The Appellate Authority allowed the
appeal mainly on the ground that since the respondent was in possession,
his name should be recorded. In revision, the High Court has affirmed
the said finding. This appeal/special leave petition was filed against
the aforesaid order of the High Court in revision and has been heard by
us in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
In our view, the impugned order of
the High Court cannot be sustained simply for two reasons. First, the
admission made by the respondent before the Tribunal on the basis of
which the application was rejected by the Tribunal was not considered in
proper manner. Secondly, after the order was passed by the Land
Tribunal, a writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid order of
Tribunal about seven to eight years
thereafter. Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal in favour of
the respondent did not at all consider the aforesaid admission from the
respondent and also did not consider whether sufficient explanation
wasgiven for delay in filing the writ petition. That being the position,
we have no other alternative but to set aside impugned order of the High
Court and the matter be sent back for rehearing of the same. The writ
petition shall be heard and disposed ofwithin a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the High Court.
The Civil Appeal is accordingly
allowed to the extent indicated above, with no order as to costs.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Print This Judgment