- (1.) The appellant, the aggrieved party in these two appeals, was granted special leave limited to the question as to whether the learned single Judge of the High Court was justified in passing strictures against the appellant. On merit of the matter, the fate of the cases stands sealed.
(2.) The reference to the appellant in the judgment of the learned single Judge is in two capacities:(i) as a party-respondent connected with the merits of the matter; and (ii) his brooding presence as a Minister of the time to have influenced the decision-making of the Land Tribunal, it being a land reforms matter. The learned single Judge in paragraph 4 of his judgment observed as follows: "But, in this case it appears to me that the regular procedure prescribed by the Land Reforms Act for conferring occupancy rights on the tenants who were in occupation of the lands immediately prior to 1-8-1974 had been abused by the Chairman and the members of the Tribunal to cause wilful loss to the petitioners and they did not have the courage of their convictions to stand up to the machinations of respondent - 3 (the appellant herein) who was admittedly a Minister of the State Government at the relevant time." (Emphasis supplied).
(3.) On appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court at the instance of the appellant, the Division Bench in para 31 of its judgment observed as follows: "As earlier observed, we do not find any direct evidence to hold that the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal at the behest of the appellant who exercised his influence on them. But the facts and circumstances of the case leave no manner of doubt that after the passing of a decree in the partition suit, a determined effort which was within the knowledge of the appellant, was made to defeat the claim of Naikwadi family, which in our view was wholly unjustified." ;