IN THE HIGH COURT OF KANATAKA AT BMGMO’F DATED THI$ THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 SEFORS THE HON9tE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA ITIONNo.56O1994 8ETEN: aribasavegowda since deceased and represented by L.R 5 . 1. Smt. Sannnma, Wife of late Karibasavegoa; 2. Smt. Motairnia motr of deceased Karibaavegow3a 3. T<.Mahadegowia, sic, late TCaribaavegowda; 4. Mallegh, sic. late Kar ibasavegowda; S. Basavaraju, Sb. late Kariba5 avegowda, 6. Nagamadaiah, 5/0. late Ken basavegowda; 7. Vishakantha, s/c late Kariba,avegowda; 8. Devamrr, D/e late Kanibasavegowda; All are majors regiding at Kemele village, Satnur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore istrict. ..P T ’TITIONER5 (‘ Sri.T.R.Subbanna, Advocate) —2— 1 T1t? State of Karnataka, by its Revenue Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore—l. 2 The Land Tribunal, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanakapura, Banga1re Dist., by its Chairman. 3. Sri,A.Abdul Wazeed, major, Ex.Member, Land Tribunal, Kanakapura, Bangalore 13it, 4. ri S .M. Syed MOhammed sab, since deceased by L.R. a) yed Fakruddin Pa 5 ha, s/o late S.M.Syed Mohiyuddin, aged about 48 years; b) ¶yed Ibrahirn, s/o. late S.M. 3yed Mohiyuddin, aged about 40 years; c) Syed Khasim, s/o. late S.M. Syed Mohiyuddin, aged about 36 years; a) yed Moinnudin, /o. late g.M. Syed Moharnood, aged about 23 years; e) Syed Arneenuddin, s/o. late S .M .Sved Mohamood, aged about 21 years; Regpotents 4(a) to (e) are residing at No.622, IV T.B1k, 36th Cross, 22nd Main Road, Jayanagar, Banga1ore4l. . .DESPCNDENTS (By Sri Mohamned Shafuddin for R—4(a) to (e) Smt.Bharathi Nagegh, GA for R-1 & 2) —3— This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the COflgtittiO of India praying to treat the apea1 ALRA 991/1987 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Autrity, angalore. etc., This Writ Petition is caning on for hearing thig day, the Court made the fo1lcFing:— ORDER The peeitioners late husband Karibasavegowda wa the applicant before the second respondent Tribunal claiming occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.217 meauring 5 acres 17 guntas, Sy.No.218 measuring 6 acres 34 guntas and Sy.No.221 measuring S acres 34 guntas situated at Sasalapura village, Icanakapura taluk, aralore district, claiming that he has tenant under the 4th respondent. Therefore, he filed Form Pb.7 before the second respondent Tribunal for grant of occupary rights In his favour under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, contending tIt he hag be cultivating the lards a5 a tenant immediately before 1.34974. Therefore, the lards are tenanted. 2. The order gheet produced by the petitioner at Annexure—E, notice issued to the parties in pursuant to the order dated 13.2.1979 to the —4— petitioner and the 4th respondent, it is not re corded that notices re ge rved On t bern and further an enquiry wag rot conducted as contemp lated under Section 48(A) of the ICarnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 read with Rule 17 of the Yarna— taka Land Reform 8 Rules read with Section 34 Of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Tribunal hag not given sufficient and adequate opportimity to the applicant to establish his claim • The impugned order is not a speaking order. A 5 it hag failed to give valid and cogent reasons in rejecting the application of the applicant. On this ound alone the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the peti tioner suits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner challengIng the impugned order by virtue of amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the writ petition 1Jag transferred to the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore Rural District, A.L.RA,991/87, During pendefloy of the gaid appeal before the ergtwhile Appellate Authority, two applications I.A,Nos,VtI and VIII have been filed. prom the order sheet maintained by the et 9 twhile Land Reforms Appellate Authority, it is noticed that on 8.3.1990 two — applications were filed under Rule g(r) of the Karnataka Land Reforms ppellate Authority Rul, seeking permission of the 5 aid apoellate authority to add uce addi ti 0 nal evi de nce and to produce documents. The erstwhile Lani Reforms Aprellate AutI-ority were abolished in pursuant to the amendment to the Act again, this case got trarsferred to this Court at the instance of the petitioner. This Court hag taken the view to the effect that the applications were filed 1y the parties seeki r permission of the said authority to adduce additional evidence, it would be proper for thI 5 Court to remit back the cage to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the claim ari3 counter claim of the parties after giving fair and rea 5 onable opriortunity to the contesting parties. In thig view of the matter alec, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter hag to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is alled. Rule made absolute. The impugnad order at AnnexureF in case No. LR.T’.(SA)l/7475 dated 9.4.1979 is quashed. 6— The matter is remitted back to the Land Tribunal the second respondent herein with a direction to re—consider the case after affording an opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the same in accordare with law within 5 1x months from the date of receipt of thig order, bot no costs are awarded Bg/—19O698 Bg/O1O798