AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal
One Chandayya Naika makes an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. Suffice it to say that the matter had come up before this Court in W.A.No. 2092/2006. Matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. During the course of enquiry, the Tribunal, it appears directed the petitioner to file a written statement but however, the same could not be filed. The Tribunal has rejected the request of the petitioner for filing of the written statement and has posted the matter for enquiry and further recorded the statement of the landlord. In these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court questioning the order dated 23.7.2011 denying an opportunity to file the written statement and to lead evidence.
I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Without going into the controversy whether sufficient time was granted or not, suffice it to say that an opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to fife a written statement. All the legal representatives of the original applicant shall be brought on record.
Hence, the following order:
Impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner to file written statement is set aside. The Tribunal shall take the written statement which is already on record and proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner is also permitted to lead evidence both orally and documentary. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Mr. Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.