Ft l 155 UGi QOLRI C AWII&A AT £GALCEE D1Z AiS. 155 4Th iA (Se CLIE t%8 3550kB: 1:5 ..CJ’ELr !:R.JifiCE SeSALbJ1HA Sbaraia 1 pa S/o Ta asennaoouda AaC 4 C”: Ari 1 . 4n, Siitaipur, iq 1. Dst: Raichur, Thi±iONLR (3, &iri Basavaraj iareddy, sdvo late,,) r Ti, 2t i Ad, I • The State of Kamata by its ecxet ry, Bevai e Departmc t, ‘.S.Raild1ng, Baigalore. 2. The Laid ribimal, Deodurga At: Deod rga, Det: Raicnur, 3, The iahsildar, Deodurga, At: Deodarga, Diet: Raichur. ,,, RES5CND1TS By Sri S.lrlagainath, Addi.Gcvt,Advocate,,) rtt Pet Lion filed under Article 226 aid 271 of the Constitntbn of India, prayftg to quash vide kriere—A, dated 2E—1OEi declare the saie as i legal m b in lay ct’., This IetLtion caring on for preliminary hearing tois aay, the Court mace tce xosLowing: 0M235 a I have heard the çetiticmer’s learned Advocate as also the learned Govt.idvccate. he petitioner’s learned Advocate has seriously assailed the iznpugied order on the ground that the Tritnnal nas acoeçted the figure of 87.28 acres as being the holding of tte petitioner as Indicated by the Special 1htsildar. The petitioner’s leamef Advocate contends that the ccapztation is Incorrect arid imfair to the petitioner who has not been given a opportunity to substantiate his plea that the holding is Aithin the ceiling limit. The lnrned Advocate subtite that if the nianber of no fazly nanbers etc., i looked into, that/a’iount of lwa pill have to be rradcred me that the manner fl *11100 tue case ha oem die ed of s mfair to the petitioner. TI’ leame sovt.Advoc te 5 pottea out th2t ct ine prevented t e p titimer r 1 epreseitat ye adluclngmateri b’r te rhnal in the f rst instance to satisf to A t r ti, that the holding was within the ceilne linit and he tarther arg”Aee on the basis of the order that ObVlO’)Slg’, the point regardine fIly ratbere etc., teS never canvassed befure tre ribmal aid that :t ainot “e remitted rto 4 — to be raised for the first time before the High Court. 3. The order of the Tribunal is a very cryptic order mid In a case where substantial acr4e of lat is ordered to be forfeited, to my mind, the party must be afforded the full opportunity of substan tiating his plea. (ki this lhited ground, the Impimed order Is set aside ad the case Is ramided to the Tribunal for a fresh decislai. 4. The Petitlmi accordIng1y succeeds ad stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 5. There l.a one other aspect of the matter raised by the learned Govt.Advocate nanely that the petitioner’s earlier application to this Court es dismissed. 1 have not gone Into that aspect of the matter because I have upheld the suhnission canvassed by the petitioner’s learned Advocate that this Court is within its jurisdiction to mitertaln this petition In tbe Interest of doing substantial jLstice to the parties. Sd/a jUDGE