AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G Ramesh
Petitioner mutt assails the order of the Land Tribunal, Udupi on 4.8.1981 - annexure A granting occupancy rights in favour of the applicant K Rama Rao, father of the 3rd respondent. Heard the counsel representing the parties.
According to the petitioner''s counsel, husband of the 3rd respondent was acting as a Manager of the Mutt. Misusing his office, he has given consent for grant of occupancy rights in favour of the applicant Rama Rao, father of the 3rd respondent. On coming to know of the fraudulent act of Sripathi Tantry. Mutt has taken a decision to remove him and also immediately on coming to know of the fraudulent act, it has challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before this Court and also contended, revenue records still stand in the name of the Mutt.
Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that there is delay of twenty four years and in respect of some other land which was leased out, Sripathi Tantry had given consent on behalf of the Mutt, but that has not been assailed. The land has lost it character and it has been transferred to several hands. Accordingly, he has sought for dismissal of the petition.
Heard the Government Pleader.
In reply petitioner''s counsel, referring to the photographs, submitted that the land still retains the character of khuski land as it was earlier. Fraud has been discovered of late as such, immediately on coming to know of the fact, petitioner has approached this Court. It is his contention, order has been passed by the Land Tribunal due to the fraudulent act of the husband of the 3rd respondent.
What is not in dispute is, the husband of the 3rd respondent was acting as a Manager and subsequently, he has been removed. The tenant is none other than his father-in-law. Having regard to the relationship and also when it is clearly stated that it is the fraudulent act of the husband of the 3rd respondent to knock off the property by giving consent on behalf of the Mutt, it appears all is not well with the order passed by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed. Matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for disposal of the same according to law. All contentions are left open to be urged.
Petition is allowed