Shivappa Mallappa
Pujar & Ors. Vs. Guddappa & Ors. [2008] INSC 1172 (17 July 2008)
Judgment
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2186
OF 2002 SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA PUJAR & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS GUDDAPPA &
ORS. Respondent(s) ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an appeal
arising out of judgment and order dated 26th June, 2000 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in L.R.R.P. No.2339/1990. An application was
filed in the year 1977 by Hanumappa - the predecessor-in-interest of the
contesting respondents, before the Land Tribunal Ranebennur for conferment of
occupancy rights, which was disposed of in the following manner:
"Applicant
present in Court. Amongst the opponent, 1st opponent and the mother are
present. Matter was enquired and the statements were recorded. The relevant
records were perused. The Applicant was earlier cultivating the land on Koru
lavani and thereafter i.e. 4 to 5 years back the said land was given to the
landlords.
contd...2/- 2 The
Opponent who were present have admitted the position.
Village Reg.Sy.No.
Area Revenue Mastur 69 9-21 20.68 Since the applicant has stated before the
tribunal that he has given up the cultivation of the land the application of
the Applicant is rejected."
About seven years
thereafter, a writ petition was filed by him before the High Court challenging
this order of the Land Tribunal Ranebennur. The Appellate Authority allowed the
appeal mainly on the ground that since the respondent was in possession, his
name should be recorded. In revision, the High Court has affirmed the said
finding. This appeal/special leave petition was filed against the aforesaid
order of the High Court in revision and has been heard by us in presence of the
learned counsel for the parties.
In our view, the
impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained simply for two reasons.
First, the admission made by the respondent before the Tribunal on the basis of
which the application was rejected by the Tribunal was not considered in proper
manner. Secondly, after the order was passed by the Land Tribunal, a writ
petition was filed challenging the aforesaid order of the contd...3/- 3
Tribunal about seven to eight years thereafter. Appellate Authority while
deciding the appeal in favour of the respondent did not at all consider the
aforesaid admission from the respondent and also did not consider whether
sufficient explanation was given for delay in filing the writ petition. That
being the position, we have no other alternative but to set aside impugned
order of the High Court and the matter be sent back for rehearing of the same.
The writ petition shall be heard and disposed of within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the High Court.
The Civil Appeal is
accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above, with no order as to costs.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
......................J.
(TARUN
CHATTERJEE) ......................J.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
