LAWS(KAR)-1977-2-15

HIRE MASUDI IMAM Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL SHIRGUPPA

Decided On February 22, 1977
HIRE MASUDI IMAM Appellant
V/S
LAND TRIBUNAL, SHIRGUPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, aggrieved by the order of Bhimiah, J, dt.12th August, 1976, rejecting WP 6933 of 1976 at the stage of preliminary hearing, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The second respondent alleging he is a tenant of 3 acres 35 guntas or agricultural land in Sy No,433(P) of Shirguppe, Bellary Dist, filed an application for registration of occupancy under S.45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) . The appellant is the land holder The facts alleged in the application do not appear to have been verif ed by the Tahsildar with reference to the Record of Rights as is required to be done under Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the Act. The second respondent made an application before the first respondent-Tribunal for the issue of an order of injunction. The Tribunal without issuing notice of that application to the appellant straightaway passed an order granting interim injunction against the appellant. Coming to know of the said order, the appellant made an application before the Tribunal to revoke the order of injunction. That application was not heard and no order was passed by the Tribunal. After waiting for a long time, the appellant approached this Court for relief under Art.226 of the Constitution. That writ petition came up before Bhimiah, J, who, at the stage of preliminary hearing rejected the same.

(3.) In the writ petition, the appellant has alleged, inter alia, that the third respondent B.E.Ramayya one of the members of the first respondent-Tribunal, is biased against the Muslim community and therefore, the impugned order has been made against him. The third respondent has not denied the charge made against him notwithstanding the fact that he has been impleaded as a party respondent and notice of this appeal has been taken to him. It is unnecessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal to consider the complaint of bias alleged against one of the Members ot the Tribunal, since it has to succeed on merits of the case.