( 1 ) THIS writ petition preferred by a land-holder is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Hukeri, dated 19-4-1977 in Case No. TNC. SR. 8810, conferring occupancy right on respondent No. 12, who was the applicant before the Land Tribunal, in respect of 1 acre, 27 guntas of agricultural land in Block No. 383 o. f Belavi Village. Respondents 3 to 5 are the Members of the Land Tribunal Hukeri. Respondents 6 to 11, 13 and 14 are members of the family of respondent no. 12.

( 2 ) THE order of the Land Tribunal has been challenged in this writ petition on several grounds. It is not necessary to consider all the grounds except the one which vitiates the entire proceedings. It has been alleged that the Land Tribunal has not examined the parties and given an opportunity to the opposite party to cross-examine. Similarly, no witnesses were examined before the Tribunal affording an opportunity to the opposite party to cross-examine. I called for the records of the Land tribunal and it is seen therefore that this grievance made out by the petitioner is correct. Shri G. B. Raikar and Shri Kothavale, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, do not dispute the fact that the parties and their witnesses were not examined in the open by the Land Tribunal.

( 3 ) UNDER Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the procedure to be followed by the Land Tribunal has been prescribed. According to the said Rule, the Tribunal has to follow the procedure laid down by Section 34 of the Kamataka Land Revenue Act, Section 34 read with Sections 35 and 36 of the Land Revenue Act, requires that the proceedings of the Tribunal should be held in open and it does not permit the Tribunal to dispose of cases merely on affidavits of parties in which case, the opposite party will have no opportunity of contesting the evidence by cross examination.

( 4 ) IN the instant case, the Tribunal has not followed the above procedure. This illegality in the procedure followed by the Tribunal has vitiated the proceedings. It has resulted in substantial injustice to the petitioner whose property right has been adversely affected by the order of the Tribunal.

( 5 ) THERE is one other ground for interference under Article 226 of the constitution. The Tribunal. has relied on the report of enquiry made by the Police Circle Inspector, Hukeri, dated 21-12-1975, for holding that the applicant (Respondent No. 12) is personally cultivating the land in question. The report of the Police Inspector cannot be evidence. It is open to the parties to examine the Police Inspector, affording the opposite party an opportunity to cross examine. The report as such, is not substantive evidence.

( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition, quash the impugned order of the Land Tribunal and remit the matter to the Land tribunal to make a fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording the interested parties reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ordered accordingly. No costs.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document