AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Gururajan, J.—Petitioner-U.B.M.C. Trust Association is challenging an order at Annexure-E dated 17.10.1979 passed by the Land Tribunal in the case on hand.
Petitioner is a Registered Trust Association by name United Basel Mission Church Association, Udupi. It has a registered office at Mangalore, D.K.
Petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy. Nos. 944/2 and 788 respectively measuring 10 cents; 3 guntas and 2 acres 22 guntas situated at Boloor Village, Mangalore Taluk, Mangalore. Petitioner is in possession of these lands. The 3rd Respondent calling herself as a so-called original tenant, filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal in 1979. In respect of the very same lands, her husband had already filed Form No. 7 for the said survey numbers as back as 23.8.1974. The owner of the said lands was wrongly shown as Common Welfare Trust or Church of South India, Mangalore. Petitioner-Association is the landlord of the said survey numbers. However, the Trust''s name was shown in R.T.C. but, its name was not shown in Form No. 7 by the contesting Respondents. In those circumstances, Petitioner was not aware of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal issued notice to the persons mentioned in Form No. 7. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal has chosen to pass the impugned order. Petitioner has provided further material facts and has raised material grounds in support of its say.
The Respondents have entered appearance through their respective Counsel. No counter is filed.
Heard Sri Manjunath, learned Counsel for Petitioner. He took me through the pleadings to show that the Petitioner ought to have been heard in the matter, in the light of the ownership. He says that wrong persons'' name are shown in Form No. 7 resulting in the impugned order. He says, injustice is done to his client.
Per contra, Sri B.V. Krishna, learned Counsel invites my attention to Annexure-B to say that the notice was sent to the landlord and they have not chosen to enter appearance.
After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record, I do not want to go in detail into the merits of the matter. In fact, an allegation has been made in the body of the petition that originally the 3rd Respondent''s husband had field Form No. 7 in respect of these lands. I have seen the impugned order. The order reflects non-application of mind. Even otherwise, there is a dispute regarding the owner issue.
In these circumstances and on the facts of the case and in the light of non-application of mind by the Land Tribunal, I deem it proper to set aside Annexure-E and remit the matter for re-decision. It is open to the contesting Respondents to raise all contentions that are available in law, before the Land Tribunal.
I deem it proper to fix a time schedule by myself, to avoid any further loss of time. Parties are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal without waiting for any notice on 15th December, 2004.
The Counsel are directed to inform their respective clients with regard to posting of the case before the Land Tribunal on 15th December, 2004.
Liberty is reserved to both the parties to file additional evidence/additional documents in regard to their respective pleas.
The Tribunal is directed to hear the parties and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, within six months from 15.12.2004.
No opinion is expressed on the merits of the matter.
Ordered accordingly. No costs.
The learned Government Pleader is given four weeks''s time from today to file her memo of appearance.