1j I HE HIGH C Ui T JP RATAI PANGk JTE IrJS TrC 151 .hY UF AIRIL ‘OO THE iNE i..J3TI5 ,NjyArc IiJP N, 950 of I 9Q0 C /w LBRP Nc- .504 of 1990 hadaoada basappa sb a1laopa, major, Occ:Ac’ril., r’o Fyloor Pe 4 tien2r 5n village, 5c Zist. Bellary. IJ-R7 ‘5fl’°fl Ey Sri V.T.Raya Redy, adv., Sri Chidanandapa s/a Doddapoa t adaoad, major, r/o Eyloor, Petitioner in Eellary Taluk, LRRP ND,04/9fl Ey Sri C.M.Eesei, a-v., ) 90 I, The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary (Revenue), VidFana Soudha, M.S.bldg., banoa lore. 2. The Land Tribunal, bellary, by its Secretary. 3. Sri hidanandaooa s/o c-oddaooa ior, cc:Aor 4 1,, r/o Eyloor, Lel 1 ary ist, 2y Sri .M.esai, adv,, for R_3; Sri Srinivasa Re’dy, NCGP for H_i and 2 ) NO./90 I. Sri HadaDad Easaopa s/a Maila-pa rnjor, r/o Byloor villaae Bellary I aluk, 2— 2. State of Karnataka by its SecrE.tary, venue Deoart.tn..nt, Vidh rasoudha, Ba.noa 1.ore., 3. Lanc.I Tribunal, Bellary, by its Chairman, Bellary Taluk. 4. Manala Inam reoresented by the Tahsildar, Beilary. Resoondents ( By Sri. V.T.Ravareddi, a-v., for R_’ ) These Ui.RPs are filed u/s I 2!—A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act aaairist the order dated 18,10.89 passed in R.A.No,270/86 on the file of the Dist. Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bellary, dismissinc the appeal and confirmino the order passed by the Land. Tribunal, Bellary, in b.3098/77—78 2430/8’—82 dated 31.10.81. These LRRPs coming on for hearino this day, the Court made the following:— DE:R Both these revisions are directed acainst the order of the vteilate Authority, BeLlarv settino aside the order of the Land Tribunal and dilectinc the Tahsiic ar, Bel Larv to resume the land• to the Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The land in question is Survey .86 measuring 4 acres 64 cents of Byloor Village in Bellary Taluk, Two persons viz,, Hadaoada Basappa the petitioner in LRRP .5O/9O one Smt. and Form No.1 respectively K.Prabhavathy filed Form i.7kefore the Land Tribunal, claimino cccuancy riohts in rps,ect of the said land. the Land Tribunal isue’ 4 a oublic notice callino upon one Chidananaooa :dada,ad who is the petitioner in LRRP .5O4/2O to file his oblections as his name finds a olace in th ‘TC, urLno the course of the enQuiry, the Tribunal recorder 4 the statements of Hadanada Easaopa and Chidanandappa wherein Hadapada Basapoa claimed 2 acres 64 cents and Ohidanandanpa claimed 2 acres. kcer,4hese statements, the Tribunal aranted occupancy rihts as claimed by them, tt s tisie with this order Hadap da Easanpa, the oetiticner in l.P.RP NO.9/2O filed a writ netition before this court w ch was transferred to the file of the Appellate Author ty, Beliary after the C nstitution of the said Authority. When notice was issued to Ohidanandaroa, he m-e su 3 missi’ns berore the i4uthorLty that a writ ptition is oendinc before the Hih court anainst the order of the Land Tribunal ..4e ane that th— aoolfrtlnn ‘lied by him in worm ‘b.3A •as also pendinç befcre the aribunol. Itwever, this athority. submission was not acce,ted by th App.tlat.j Certain ‘4— peculiarities were noticed by the anpellate authority in this case. Thourh it is a service inam laM *hich is described as barter mae, the name of the inamdar is not at all mentioned by any one o’ the authorities. The Tribunal, while cnnsidarince the aoplicatic.n of Hadaoada Easaooa has oranted occupancy riohts in favour of ChidananAa,oa, the other oetitiona”r eventhough there was no application for grant of occupancy rights. He subseauently mace an apolication in the year igA clalminn s ci’ rioht. This n fact shciws that the Tribunal has clearly erre in grant.nç occupancy rights in resect of 2 acres of land in favour of Chidanandappa. 2. sn so far as the claim made by Hedapada £asaopa, two sets of pahanis were rokced before the appellate authority, is ext ct ef Alt f r the yotrs 1964 to 1972 issued by the Tahsildar, Bellary shows the name of Chidanandan,a 4n the cu’tivator’s column. —5-. Yhile bx,A,4 oroduced by Haispada Easaooa, another extract c f the showino his nate for 9-e 1972 to 1979 discloses that Hadapada basaooa scam come in possession of the land from the year 198), These are the stranae ways of LTC in the Taluka Eellarv contrary t ,rcvisi)ns of Sections 17, 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, The Aopellate Authority is right to observe that the authorities includino the Land Tribunal members and the Chajn must have danced to the tunes of some force behind the whole episode, Otherwise, the Iribunal would not have treated this case in the manner in which it has been done by orantinc’ certain land in favour of the Derson who has not arnlie’ 4 for regrant. This is the sorry state of affairs orevail— ing in these Land Reforms Tribunals. 3. Sr V,, ya ‘iv, le’n 4 coino1 fr the in petitionei L L i.95O/9O has contended that the entries in the RTC discloses his name from Q73 just comma into force of the Land :efos Act and there is oral evidence oroduced y him for examinino 4 witnesses, Therefore, the oral evidence also suppor the entries in the RTO. The aooeliate authority has not considered his evidence, Therefore, the order is liable tobe set aside and the matter requires reconsideration in the hands of the Tribunal. 4, The Aoe11ate Authorjt’., has nodoubt cons idred two sets of RTC produced. The enquiry conducted by the Tribunal was very casual and the Tribunal has not considered these two sets of entries made ine pahariis. Learned counsel for the etitioner Sri Raya reddy has not explained as to how his client’s name came tobe entered for the first time in the cultivator 1 s column of the RTC in respect of disputed land for the year 1972—73 without there beine an enquiry and chanqe of mutation. There is a cloud under which the claim is made. It is really for the parties to clear this doubt as to the nature of the entries found in the Dahanis and actual it is for the Tribunal to consider who was in/possession of the land, it is now stated by the learned counsel appearinc for the petitioner irv b.5O4/9P viz., b I Chidariandappa that the observations made by the Tribunal that his application was bElated is incorrect the time as the State Goveriaent has extended 40 make applica tions upto 30.6. 19B7. Infact, the appellate authority has not noticed the subsequent ordinance issued by the State Government of Karnataka while consi1ering the application of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has set aside the order of the Land Tribunal which has granted 2 acres of land in favour of Chidanandappa as the same was challenged by Hadapada Basappa. There fore, the contention raised that the authority has cancelled the grant without there being an appeal is incorrect. However, the whole matter requires n—consideration in the light of these facts. The revisions are therefore allowed. The Tribunal is directed to consider the claim of Hadapada Basappa and Chidanandappa having regard to the entries in the RT and other oral evidence. Sd/a JUDGE bkv/e