Back
2006 Supreme(Kar) 92
Karnataka High Court
Kumari Erawwa - Appellant
Versus
Land Tribunal - Respondent
Decided On : 01-25-06
L.R.R.P. : 4 of 1995
A.R.Sharadamba, I.G.GACHCHINAMATH, K.APPA RAO
Headnote:Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 -Section 121 -Violation of principles of natural justice -Petitioner was minor over whose land occupancy rights were claimed -Minor was represented by his mother and natural guardian -Appellate authority discharged guardianship at the instance of claimants at which time minor was a major -Notice not caused to him -Evidence came to be recorded on the same day -Occupancy rights conferred -Held, the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same is liable to be set aside -Matter remitted to Land Tribunal since the Appellate Authority is abolished. [V. G. Sabhahit, J]: Original records of the First Appellate Authority show that a memo was filed on 04.07.1987 by the 3rd respondent, who is the appellate before the Appellate Authority, stating that since the petitioner has attained majority, guardianship may be discharged and on the same day, the Appellate Authority has recorded the statement of the 3rd respondent, Yellappa and has discharged the guardianship and without issuing notice to the petitioner, has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Though it is averred in the objections statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner was served with notice, it is clear that the same is not substantiated by the material on record and the original records of the Appellate Authority clearly shows that the guardianship was discharged on the basis of a memo filed by the 3rd respondent on 04.07.1987 and on the same day, without issuing notice to the petitioner, guardianship was discharged and the evidence of the 3rd respondent was recorded and by order dated 29.08.1987, the Appellate Authority has reversed the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not notified after the guardianship was discharged on 04.07.1987 on the basis of a memo filed by the 3rd respondent before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and she had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined before the appellate authority and to substantiate the contention and to support the order passed by the Land Tribunal, wherein the application for conferment or occupancy right filed by the father of the 3rd respondent has been rejected, and wherefore, the same cannot be sustanined.
Natural Justice -Violation of Principles of -Discharge of guardian and leading evidence without causing notice -Amounts to violation of the principle. See, Karnataka, Land Reforms Act, 1961 -Section 121.
Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal Rules, -Legality of order passed by Appellate Tribunal -Violation of principles of natural justice. See, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 -Section 121.
( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, dharwad, in L. R. Appeal No. 367/1986 dated 29. 08. 1987, reversing the order passed by the land Tribunal, Gadag, dated 24. 07. 1976 and conferring occupancy right in favour of respondent no. 3 in respect of lands bearing R. S. Nos. 99/3 and 100/3 situate at Suratur Village, Gadag taluk, Dharwad District, measuring 1 Acre 19 Guntas and 02 Acres 16 Guntas respectively.
( 2 ) THE father of the 3rd respondent herein filed Form No. 7 seeking conferment of occupancy right in respect of lands bearing R. S. Nos. 99/3 and 100/3. The petitioner was a minor at that time and was represented by his mother and natural guardian, Smt. Erawwa. The Land Tribunal by order dated 04. 02. 1976, rejected the Form No. 7 filed by the father of the 3rd respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Land Tribunal, the 3rd respondent preferred wp. No. 20365/1983 and after the establishment of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the writ petition was transferred to the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad, and came to be numbered as appeal No. 367/1986. The appellate authority by order dated 29. 08. 1987, reversed the order passed by the Land Tribunal and allowed the appeal and conferred occupancy right in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of lands bearing sy. No. 99/3 measuring 1 Acre 19 Guntas and Sy. No. 100/3 measuring 02 Acres 16 Guntas situate at Suratur Village, Gadag Taluk Dharwad District, and being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the petitioner-landlady has preferred this revision petition.
( 3 ) I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a minor when the orders were passed by the Land Tribunal and by this Court in WP. No. 20365/1983 remitting the matter to the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority with a direction to the parties to appear before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority on 29. 09. 1986. Thereafter, the guardianship has been discharged at the instance of the 3rd respondent on 04. 07. 1987 without issuing notice to the petitioner, who had attained majority and on the same day, evidence was recorded by the appellate Authority and the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness examined before the appellate authority and to substantiate her contentions. Therefore, the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside.
( 5 ) ON the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 vehemently argued that this Court had notified the date for appearance before the Appellate Authority and notice was served upon the petitioner and despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Appellate Authority and wherefore, cannot now contend that she had no opportunity to substantiate the case and for cross-examining the witness examined before the Appellate authority.
( 6 ) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority has passed the order in accordance with law learned HCGP, has made available the original records maintained by the Appellate Authority.
( 7 ) I have considered the contentions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties with reference to the material on record.
( 8 ) IT is clear from a perusal of the material on record that as on the date of passing of the order by the Land Tribunal i. e. , 24. 04. 1976, and on the date on which the order was passed by this court in W. P. No. 20365/1983 i. e. , 25. 09. 1983, remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority and directing the parties to appear before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority on 29. 09. 1986, the petitioner was a minor and was represented by her guardian, mother. Further, the original records of t
