Gulabsab Hasanaiisab Pendari1 v. State of Karnataka

(By Sri F.V.Patil, Adv,,) AND:

State of Karnataka Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, 2 Huchthusab Budensab Pendari, Major, 0cc: Agril.. r/o Kalasapur, Tq: Gada, Dist, Oharwad. 3, Sudheendra Ramarao Huilgol, Major, r/o Gadag, Station Road, Dist, Dharwad. 4 Fatima w/o Babusab Kukunur, Major, 0cc: Household work, r/o Gadag Betageri, Tq: Gadag, Diet, Dharwad, Respondents (By Sri. Umesh R Malirnath, Adv., for R2; Sri K.H.Jagadish, GA, for RI) L 2 This CS is filed u/s 151 of CPC r/w u/s 17 of the KLR Act r/w Articles 226 and 227 of the Ccnstitution of India. that for the reasons stated in the accompanying the affidavit that this Hon ble Court be pleased to consider this Application and the Appeal No,LRA 242/87 filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad, may be treated as Writ Petition, of the Land Reforms Act, in view of the amendment to S.l7 This Writ Petition coming on for prly. hearing this day, the Court made the following :— ORDER Though this petition is listed for preliminary hearing, the same is heard on merits and disposed of by this order ith the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides4 2 The crder dated October 30, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Gadag, is sought to be quashed by the petitioners in this petition.

The petitic:ners are the legal heirs of one Hasanssb Gudenasab Pendari, the elder brother of the second respondent4 Hasansabifiied Fo No,7 in respect of Sy.No.1/2 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas to register hIm as an occupantu/s 45 of the Karnataka Land Refons Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), The second respondent also filed a similar application to 3 register him as an occupant n respect of Sy.Nos.l/1 and 1/2 of Kalasapura Villaqe. At the first instance the Tribunal rejected the application of the second respondent in so far as it related to Sy.No,1/2 and directed to register Hasansabas an occupant. That order was challenged by the sebond respondent before this. Court. This Court by its order dated February ll 1985 allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. By the time the... Tribunal teok up the case for hearing Hasansabj.,, the original applicant had died. The netitioners caine on record.

The second resoondent produced an agreement alleged to. have been made between him and his brother Hasansabto cultivate the land in question in equal share, It is also seen from the order that the second respondent filed a written statement along with the agreement. The Tribunal relied on the a.oreernent and airectea to register each of the applic.an€s as tenants in respect o f one half cf the lanti in question, This order was challenged 4 4 before the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority. t the abolition .f the Land Reforms Appellate Authority it was withdrawn by this Court arid registered as this petition. 5 • It is seen from the impugned order that the Tribunal did not make any reference to any evidence of the parties recorded by the Tribunal. It is also not even possible to draw any inference as to the recording of any statement of the parties. The document produced by the second respondent was relied on by the Tribunal even though it was not antronted to the petitioners and the witnessl. was not subjected to crosseexamination • The Tribunal failed to consider any evidence other than the agreement alleged to have been made between the second respondent and the deceased HasansabL,

For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed • The order dated October 30, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Gadag in N0JCMR.SR.1O+11. Italasapura, is set aside only in so far as it relates to Sy.No.l/2 of Icalasapura Village and the matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal strictly in cempliance with Rule 17 of the Rules. a flu’ 5 7 • In the tircumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Office to transmit the records forthwith to the Tribunal. 4 S.. .. t; ) S. ‘ ii * ‘ç)d/3O698 Sd/a JUDGE