IN THE fUGH URT OF KR!A 7 AKA AT BANGALORE DATED ThIS THE 1 Th DAY oF JUNE, 1998 BEFO RE TEE N3LE MR. JUSTIGE V,GOPALA GOWPA iL[T PETITION .1’i2 B ETJEEN: K.O. Cbrndru, major, Sb Oboiab Gowda, Sinuabidri Post Tbirthohalli Toiu, Mardocodde Shimorn Distriet. .. PETITIONER. (By M/s.Sbetty & flede AsSocites) AND: 1. Puttoswamy, rt3or, S/o Suvithrorxà, Keed Vi1iae Mondo’udde t*bli, Thirtbnhl1i T1uk, Sbimo District, 2. The Lord Tribunal Tbirtbaballi Tfl1u, Shimo District, 3, The Sitte of Krnttoka, rep, by its Secreory Revenue Dept., M.S. B.Ld,, Bona1ore — 1. (By Sri,K,T, Mobon, Adv, ibr RI) Mrs,Bboratbi Noesh, HCGP for R2 & R3) This writ petition filed under Arts.226 ond 227 of the nstitution proyin to quash the order of R2 dt7,5,93 vide Annex-A and direct R2 to grant occupancy rights in respect of the land in question, in favour of the petitioner. This petition coming on for hearing this day, the urt mode the fol]owing: I ORDER LILa petition i tilei by tfle a licant claiming occupaacy rights in respect of tne laid bearing . /1 nasuzir 1. act 15 guritas of land and farm hotase and y.No. b3 ift isuri j2 dCt5 23 jufltdj of &i 1fl4Gidai Vilsae of itiirthahalli Talwc of Sriimoa list. it, aliaatioi filed oy the etitioner was ether rejectaa oy the Trinanal aain.t wnich he approached thib sourt oi fahi ‘It]. t tetitjn No.2713fl9. Same cane to be allowed and the matter was renitted cack to the Triuanal for fresI cc,nzderation ftr Ø.var ai o. port wty to roth the warties. 2. -s 3cr tne d.recticns issued by this Ocrnrt in ttt a id writ eitan, the land Tnbunal ccndu:ted an enjuirr asia pvc oayortu ity to bo n n€ arti • Ca th’ 0*8: of the evicence on record, the Tnoqnaj. has pss• e nil, d r3zrjct ; h cat of tne ?etitioner. 3. nggricved oy the said order, the pati ioiar is ‘eL.re tti C urt oaan urqng that, tne oroer cf tne Trianul is vitiated • .3/a ‘4.’ e3e for nor—consider U. n of evitnce n record. lherefort. then i an error aarent on the face of the record • Hence, the im3aned order is liable to oe uasned. Learnea counsel sp 1 earinj for tne petitioner subnitr that, the finaings rroraed ‘y tie Tribunal are not correct and it has rocceded to ave finding based on facts me’itioned in Form 40.7. lie botnoaries of the lands were not mentioned in the application and therefore, the description of the lan 4 was not proper. Therefore, the learned counsel suaaita dat, the findin..s of the tribunal are nct tenanle in law. Further, the learnea counsel for the petitioner elaboratina his subuission contends that, the Tricunal has tai’cd to concider the fact tiat, the uetit n—r ias et in oc u 1 atix a 8 cx Joj— nent of the lanis in uestion at the relevent time iamely inrnecsiatelj ?rior to 1.3.1174 & as on ..3.l94 .ience the lanis are tenented. Lt’er— fore, the ±indin of tre Trinhrs are erroneous in law a it baa faile t., ta a i1 t crsiaetaticx th- lcjal evloaice la ed on record in sapcrt of the clams of tn’- a’titLoner. It is further conter aed tb t, the findinjs of tne land rricunal Ii ...4/— 4— are • also bad in law for b.c reason that, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on t•e ground that the p.etiticner had not impleaded thE. real owner of th..e lands in question in the proceedinçs before the Tribunal and he has impleaded the name of savithramma who is either proper or necessary party to the proceedin The claim of the cetltio is that, savithramrna has executed a gift deed in favour of her dauçhter pushpavathi and son—in—law Pampayya Gcwda, 4. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the documentary evidence namely the lease deed said to have been executed that the lands were leased in favour of the :::a.th.er of the petitioner which was executed by the father of firstNpondent Sri Parameshwara Gowda . Further, the Tribunal has gravely erred in not taking into considera— tion the rebuttal evidence glaced on record to show that entries made in the FTC extracts are not correct entrIes. , I, er contra, the larn coon ci Mr.’. i,iohan aooearin for toe landbrd first res,00 ent herein sougot t ustlfy the impugned order passed sq the Triounal contenuin p tha ‘, the f1ndin’s recordec dv te iribunal are sed on lepal coo valid cvi ico e or re ord, Me fur thor suaiits that, rribun I has ci i wcl 0 sidred order by t tin nto c sider t th vi on record nd nas acsig a valid and 0r gent reasons in toe impuonod orcer while rejecting the claim of the etiti’ner. Further, h would subrit5 that, the etitionc: nas not made out a ground showin] tnt, to findinus of the Iriounal are eitnr perverse or orroneous sn law, Ihe learneo oosnael fsrthr sait that, tethundrder a-sed 2 te Lriouwlls 1 1 n a i a e h s c r r s r d all tha relevert p c f tke Ti t e thI d to toe le daed, FIr enre so ttr cv’ on record. o, I Ia e r ro n in t rd jo n s ur, ii t e sri titio , Heath t learned oPsel a e rlna or the uct tth er ri trer A be tjle resorident. The rriixinal has tvcen a 1 tie re 1 enit ts cat0 at e one 4 C it hcas given its tiadins nolan; tbat the p titaoier ha 4 not ,rovcd his ri lit of t narcy in recoeat of the lanas n anti n, 4- aid it his recorded a fincind holdng that, i nethately ?r’or tr 1.3.1 74 as- o 1.3.1974 tne lance in ;uesti on were not teriented and ther to e, r titi”z r is ot a tenent and conse4uently tie clain of the petitionar or graLt t cii a. rits qdS rejected. tie sutztissicn of the learnea counsel that, tie ribunal. ad i n e.1 tic ert a d ice uate op 1 .ortunitx to t.’e petitioner to prove his case a tar tie latter ins re aitted bajc to it by tiis Court in th previous writ y rocee inQa out the same was not availed y him is weal f an e2. ie ri ‘is- I a revrded a inCa for havin; ot acceptea t1 1eae deec by jivin; oat) aes • 1 i1 na owe sualats that, lease ae-d nz executed zy me it? itti tress en. ivaur tnt fatPer of tfle petitioner, tne contents of tie “ocianeits ser required bep ov d ty p . .7/ -a I a 3 m Il -I C) 4) £. % .r 1 ‘4 U ‘ •L lp j m C 3 4 • 4) WI 4 .4 • ‘H C •, a 43 .4 • 14 ‘3 a I 13 4 W %j V V La 3’ • 4 1’ t , V a g Cr * ‘.iZ 4 Ia$t’ 4? • 14 ‘.4 4 S ‘r S 4) ‘U 13 14 r 4) 0 43 4) .4 4, n • “ ii I 2 ‘ ‘C 11 ‘ 43 v q o a • S • • “ ‘11 714 4 4 eat 4 *4’ • j I t • 1 • j g 114 4 1 • £ I S 4) ‘ ol U e 43 ¶ 04 , (1 * 4 5 Sr I 4 4’ > ft” ‘4 act ‘13 3 • 4’ )i I I 0 13 a rd ‘ wit 1 r t 4 1£ II,’. • 14 343 0 • . * ‘ a * 3 4 .3’ 01. 3 F U 0 ‘H Ia% •4 1 4i ) 4 C 4 • Is vii ) Ii 1 4 4 —8— 7. In this view of he matter, this Court is very slo in inteafering vitt the orSer passed by a fact findin; authority i.e. ‘ribanal unless it is maae out that the oroer passea by it suiters iron’ either error aaparent on the face of tte record or same as passed by the Tribunal withzut jUfle sdiction. In this case, either of the grounds exist. Hence, I pass the following order: flit Petiion is aanissed. Ut aer the fdcts & circuatst,ancs ot tha se, no costs. Lea’ led ,tddl.aovt.Aavocate is permitted to file meiio of ap’zeara ice within tour weeks Sdb JUDGE 3’(/a.