AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa
In this writ petition the petitioner has called in question the order dated 4/4/1989 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, in case No.LRT185/76-77. By the impugned order, the land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of Sy. Nos.36/5, 36/1, 36/7, 36/8, 36/2, 36/9, 36/12,106/2 and 107/1 measuring 46 cents. 73 cents. 1 acre 22 cents, 1 acre 34 cents, 67 cents, 94 cents, 18 cents. 3 acres 34 cents and 68 cents respectively.
The petitioner claims, the lands in question were allotted to the share of the petitioner''s husband in the family partition in the year 1947. The petitioner''s husband died in the year 1966. At the time of partition, the lands were leased in favour of Ugga Moolya, Dama Moolya and Kuppa Moolya and they surrendered the lands through surrender deeds dated 10.5.1962, 01.05.1950 an 17.05.1948. It is stated, after the lands were surrendered, the petitioner''s husband was in possession and enjoyment of the properties. After the death of petitioner''s husband, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. It is contended that the 1st respondent was never the tenant of the lands in question. The Tribunal by its order dated 4/4/1989 has granted occupancy rights. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority in LRA No.49/90 and it has been treated as writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law She also submitted that the Tribunal without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without considering the material on record has passed the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Further she submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order and the tenants have surrendered the lands and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the lands and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in granting occupancy rights. She therefore submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
As against this, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Tribunal considering the material on record has granted occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is:
Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
It is relevant to note, the petitioner claims, the lands in question were allotted to the share of the petitioner''s husband in the partition in the year 1947. At the time of partition, the lands were leased in favour of Ugga Moolya. Dama Moolya and Lingappa Moolya and they have surrendered the lands by executing surrender deeds dated 10.05.1962. 01.05.1950 and 17.05.1948. The petitioner''s husband was in possession and enjoyment of the lands. Alter his death, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the lands. The statement of the petitioner and the documents are not considered by the Tribunal. The impugned order is not a speaking order as it is devoid of reasons. One of the members has expressed his dissent and the reasons are not recorded. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.04.1989 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, in Case No.LRT 185/76-77 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal. Mangalore with a direction to reconsider the same by giving opportunity to the parties. The learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.