KRISHNAYYA ACHARY Vs. GANAPATHI JOISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by a tenant to challenge the order dated 28-2-1990 passed by the Additional District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Puttur (D. K.) in Appeal No. L. R. A. A. 79 of 1987, whereby the Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal of the respondent 1-landlord had set aside the order dated 29-5-1987 in case Nos. LRY 2534:74-75 and 193:75-76 passed by the respondent 3-Land Tribunal, sullia.

(2.) I heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri A. Keshava Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 1-Sri P. Ganapathy Bhat. The respondent 2-landlord (the brother of the respondent 1) having been served with notice had remained absent before this Court. The respondent 3-Land Tribunal, Sullia and the respondent 4-State are represented by the learned Government Pleader sri S. S. Guttal. I have also perused the case records, both of the Appellate Authority as well as of the respondent 3-Land Tribunal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had taken me through the facts of the case; as adverted to by him, the same are as hereunder: that the revision petitioner, appears to be an illiterate person had filed Form 7 at the first instance on 28-12-1974 claiming occupancy right as against the respondent 1 herein in respect of 4 acres of land and in the said Form 7 he had stated therein that he was a tenant for about 20 years since the year 1955 and that he was not knowing the Sy. Nos. and the Patta Nos. despite the enquiries he made in the Panchayat Office. The said Form 7 was registered as case No. LEY 2534:74-76. That subsequently on 23-10-1975, he had filed yet another Form 7 claiming occupancy right in respect of the. very same extent of land, but he had set out the claim as if in respect of Sy. No. 280-4 in Patta No. 183. Interestingly enough in the place where he had to show the name of the landlord, he had shown the name of himself and the said Form 7 was registered as lry. 193:75-76 by the respondent 3-Land Tribunal. That the Land Tribunal had considered both the above two applications of the revision petitioner in the above two tenancy proceedings and held an enquiry and it had passed a considered order by granting the occupancy right to the revision petitioner. The said order came to be challenged by the respondent 1 before this Court in Writ Petition No. 24064 of 1981, wherein the respondent 1 had complained that the Land Tribunal did not hold the enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 29-11-1983 and this Court while allowing the said writ petition directed the Land Tribunal to hold a common enquiry in respect of both the claims of the revision petitioner by the Land Tribunal. This Court further observed therein that all the contentions of the parties were left open.