9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of Land Tribunal rejecting occupancy rights claim in writ petition. Analysis: 1. The writ petition challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's claim for occupancy rights in four lands. The petitioner had filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights, which was rejected by the Land Tribunal. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, but due to the abolition of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner converted the appeal into a civil petition, which was later converted into the present writ petition before the High Court. 3. The respondents claimed ownership of the lands and disputed the petitioner's status as a tenant. The Land Tribunal directed the owners to file a written statement, after which the petitioner was asked to cross-examine them. However, the procedure of cross-examination based on written statements was deemed illegal by the Court. 4. The Court found that the Land Tribunal's procedure was flawed as it allowed cross-examination without proper examination-in-chief and without administering oath to the respondents. The Court emphasized the importance of following correct legal procedures to ensure fairness and justice. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents cited a previous court decision to argue against interference, stating that if no prejudice is caused and there is no failure of justice, the Court may decline to interfere. However, the Court distinguished the present case, noting the illegality in the procedure followed by the Land Tribunal. 6. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the Land Tribunal, and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal with directions to conduct a proper enquiry, issue notices to all parties, and dispose of the matter expeditiously according to law. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
