BASAVAGOWDA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL ATHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by a land-holder is directed against the order of Mali- math, J, dated 25-10-1976 made in WP. No.9295 of 1976 rejecting the Writ Petition at the preliminary hearing stage.

(2.) The appellant is the land-holder of the land comprised in Survey No.957|lB of Athni village. The second respondent Ramappa, alleging that he is a tenant of the said land, made'an application in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Athni, for grant of occupancy right. That application is dated 6.10.1975. The second respondent appended a Note to his application stating that for the reasons stated in his affidavit accompanying Form No.7 application, the delay in making the application may be condoned. The first respondent Land Tribunal did not consider the sufficiency of the cause shown by the applicant to admit the application made beyond 31st December 1974. It straightway went into the merits of the case and held that the second respondent was a tenant of the land and consequently entitled to grant of occupancy right. The said order was challenged by the appellant in W.P. No.9295 of 1976, which came up before Malimath, J., on 25.10.1976 for preliminary hearing.

(3.) The learned Single Judge rejected the Writ Petition at that stage being of the view that the finding of the Tribunal is a finding of fact and as such did not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has come up in appeal. At the very outset, Sri K.S.Savanur, learned Counsel for the appellant, sought leave to raise a new ground which was not raised before the learned Single Judge and also in the Memorandum 6f Appeal. The ground sought to be raised, for which leave has been sought, is that the application of the second respondent was made beyond 31.12.1974 and the Tribunal could not have proceeded with the enquiry into the case of the applicant unless it admitted the application after being satisfied that the cause shown for making the application beyond the date fixed, viz., 31.12.1974, was sufficient. The ground raised by the applicant is a pure question of law and it goes to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make an order granting occupancy right. In that view, we grant the leave prayed for.