AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gukjal
Both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
Both the landlord as well as the tenant are before this Court questioning the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The landlord is aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 29/5P2 to an extent of 12 cents and Sy. No. 86/lA to an extent of 30 cents. The tenant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal wherein his claim in respect of Sy. No. 29.5 to an extent of 1 acre 60 cents has been rejected.
Both the counsel submit that the impugned order is bad insofar as the relief, which has been granted to the either sides. Indeed, both the counsel submit that the Tribunal could not have relied upon the spot inspection report to grant or deny the occupancy rights. I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal in its entirety is liable to be set aside. The matter is required to be remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
It is no doubt true that the order passed by the Land Tribunal appears to be fairly lengthy but however, reasons are to be found only in the last paragraph, which to my mind is not a speaking order. Hence, the following order is passed:
(i) Both the petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is set aside and the matter stands remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
(iii) The Tribunal shall consider the claim of the tenant in its entirety as claimed by him and it is also open for the landlord to contest the said claim.
(iv) All contentions are left open.
(v) Rule is issued and made absolute.
Mr. Shashidhar S Karmarii, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No, 1 in W.P. No. 16935/2005 & for respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 15334/2005 is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.