> it-4 ‘4 C, 4 4 e o V o C — I z — —: 2 WP.No,2205/95 ORDER The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of the 1st resoonient—Land Tribunal, Sorab, in so far as the said order relates to conferment of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No.232 of Shakunavalli villa;e measuring 3 acres 34 guntas in favour of 3rd respondent Marubasappa, since deceased, by his legal renresentat ive Shivabasappa. 2. Marubsaopa filed an aoolication before the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights in respect of three lards, viz., Survey No.40 of Aratalagadde and Survey Nos.182 & 232 of Shakunavalli, the latter two lards being of the ownership of the present petitioner Govinda Rao, We are herein concerned only with Survey No.232. By the impugned order, the Land Tribunal has conferred occupancy rights in resoect of the sad Survey No.232 in favour of Shivabasappa, 3 At the out set, Sri,Bindu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that the person Shivabasappa in whose favour occupancy rights have been conferred by the Land Tribunal in respect of Survey No.232 is utter stranger to Ci —: 3 : the proceeding before the Land Tribunal and that, therefore, the order needs to be quashed solely on this ground. To appreciate this contention, the factual p..s.ition needs to be looked into. It is true, Form No.7 was submitted by Marubasapa 5/0 Basappa Narer of Shakunavalli village. When the Land Tribunal took up the matter for enquiry, as the order sheet mainta ined by the Land Tribunal would show that, on the very first date of hearing before the Land Tribunal, Shivasappa appeared and his presence was taken as the presence of the apolicant and his signature to the order sheet was also taken. It is now made out that Marubasaoia the original applicant had since been dead. The contention of Sri.Bindu Kumar is that, firstly Shivabasappa is not admitted by the petitioner to be the legal representative of deceased applicant Marubasapoa and secondly, even if Shivabasapa was •the leçal representatlve, there is no order by the Tribunal to the effect that, he had been brought cn record as legal representative. 4, So far as the first ground is concerned, though in Paragraph 13 of the writ petition, the petitioner disputes the status of Shivabasapoa as the LR of deceased Marubasappa, —: 4 :— WP.No.,2205/9r the earlier averment in Paragraph 12 would mik it clear that pet iti er himself very much admitted that the ap-licant Marubasapta was dead and that Shivabasappa was his son. Paragraph 12 of the writ oetition would read thus : “ 12, That Form No.7 filed by Marubasappa. But at the time of the enuiry Marubasanpa was ‘Ie1 md his son Shivabasapoa is not at all brought on record. Even otherwise? in course of his evidence before the Land Tribunal? petitioner himself referred to the said Shivabasapa as the aoplicant and he made this reference while et ting triat, he, that is, the petitioner, was the khatedar of Survey No.232 and that the said land had never been cultiate1 by the apnlicant Shivabasppa. The fact, thus, remains that the pettzoner very much recognisSnivabasapna a the son of M ribasappa andM rubasappa having ine deceased, hivabasappa as ondict’ng the proceed ng before the Land Trabinil am an applicant seeking conferment of o ci anc rignts n respect of 3iriey No 23 , , S —: S — WP,No22Od/95 5 So tar as the second contention of ‘3riBindu Kumar is concerned, viz., that even if Shivabasanpa is the son of Marubasappa, tnere was no order of the Land Tribunal to the eifect that he was brought on recrd as LR of MarubasapDa, suffice it to say that, to the knowledge of the petitioner and as permitted by the Land Tribunal itself,Shivabasappa participated in the proceeding as an aplicant seeking conferment of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No.232. Both the oartles thus oroceeded and the Land Tribunal recognised that e Shivabasappa was seeking conferment of occupancy rights ih respect of Survey No.232 and that the present petitioner was opoossuch ciaim Ihe question then is) due to the absence of a forma’ order by the Land Tribunal bringing Shivabasappa on record as LR of Marubasappa, the eventual order of conferment of occipancy rights impugned herein was a nullity. This has been answered by a ijvi$jon Bench of this Court in MANJAP° M,L. -vg IONNAPPA, writ opeal No.1793/80 disposed of on 5.12. 0 (1982 (1’ Kar.L. T . S.N. 15). This is what the Division encn said. in this regard: S S 5 6 . 1Po 2206/95 dhen the parties appedring before the Tribunal are not assisted by counsel, it is neitr proper nor salutory to import the ted iical lee of pricedire f ii. Court rc€, n t bri aij fcrr all on rc rd the LRs of deceased party in a proceeding before te Tribunal cannot b held to nullify such proceedirg on that account. What has to be seen is wether the LRs of the deceased party in the pr’,ceedinq had a reasonable opoortuüty to contest the claim, H 6. The objection of ri,Bindu Kurrar, learrd counsel for te oetitionr in this r g , tt’erfore, need to be overruled and ratte reeds to be gone ito on mrits. 1 Comirg to te impigned order, it would stow that he Land Tribural s based its cone usion on tho basis of the eviderce both oral and doeumeitary. So far s oral eviden e s c ncerr’ec as r ght y iidi ated 1e m grad rder t is t e v e cc of ShI ab sa a, the R of e a O. Ca t it ga d to t e orreon I ultiv f and cerned vi rye o 32 w e eas 0 t ot ci e, th’ e a t ‘vidence of te rsert petitioner suoported by the eviderce of one —: 7 :— WPNo22O5/9S Basavarajanpa to the effect that the land has been under the cuitivaton of the petitioner himself In addition to this oral evidence, the mouqned order also refers to the documen tary evidence The Tribunal particularly makes a mention of the E.ntry of the original applicant Marubasappa t s name in respect of land concerned in the oahani column for the year 1964—65 and then refers to the fact that, from 1965—70,the $aharii column is blank, that for the year 1970—7l 1 petitioners name is ment.ioned therein and that for the year 1971—73the column is blanks If this documentary evidence had been thete before the Land Tribui..ai, it could have been said that the Tribuna.. has based...its Qonelusin with regard to conferment of occucancy rights in favour of Shivabasapo on oral and óocumentary evidence placed on record. But, it so happened that the sa..d documentary evidence from the year 1964—65 ending with 1972—73 in the pahani column, the names of Marubasappa and pe titioner stated to have been shown as referred to above 1 had not been there at all before the Land TribunaL in the entlre case records called for from the Land Tribunal, it could be seen that, there is - B :— WP.No.2235/95 no such documentary evidence at all. It is not as though it is missing by mistake. Its absence was noticed even at the time the matter was pending before the Land Reforns Apeliatc Authority and the present oetitiiner, therefore filed an applicaton therein seeking permission to adduce evidence in that regard. This ould only show that the said documentary evidence never had been there before the Land Triiunaland all that as there with regard to Survey No.232 was the oral evidence as referred to earlirhe Land Tribunal were to base its conclusion on th basis of the said oral evidence, it ould have been a iifferent matter. But, the above discussion would show that the Lard ribunal based its conclusior on nonxistent material The imougned order tterefore cannot be legally suetain B, Writ Detition is allowed. Imougned order is quashed. The matter is remitted to tIe LanI rribunal for consic3erati 0 f E. claim of Shivabasapoa for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No.232 , 4 9 4 —: 9 :— WP.14o, 2205/95 afresh after issuing notice to the present petitioner as well as to the said Shivabasappa and after affording opportunity to both the sides to lead such evidence as they may choose. Sd! JUDGE Bk/