Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 956 (KAR)

Suryakant Shivalingappa v. State Of Karnataka

2015-08-20

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2015
ORDER : In the year 1985, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition questioning the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 30.6.1979 in No.LRA/GK/11/19/7677. After constitution of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the same was transferred and a case was registered in LRA No.20/1988 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chikkodi. After abolition of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, by virtue of filing of the Civil Petition before this Court, the said Writ Petition was reverted to this Court for consideration. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Land Tribunal on the ground that the land bearing Survey No.54/1+2 situated at Hulikatti Village totally measuring 36 acres 4 guntas, purchased from its owner to an extent of 9 acres under two different sale deeds i.e., 6 acres in the year 1973 and 3 acres in the year 1975. After coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the respondent No.3 Nagappa Basappa Giddannavar filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights to an extent of 5 acres in the said survey number. Though the petitioner has sought for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 5 acres of land, the Land Tribunal after conducting a farse inquiry passed an order dated 30.06.1979 marked at AnnexureA and granted occupancy rights to an extent of 5 acres 36 guntas. The petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 6 acres of land since 1973 and 3 acres of land since 1975 respectively i.e., two bits of land as stated above. Therefore, as on 30.06.1979, he acquired the ownership over the said property. The Land Tribunal without issuing any notice to the petitioner, has passed the order granting occupancy rights in respect of 5 acres 36 guntas in favour of the respondent No.3. It is also contended that the petitioner has filed a suit in OS No.37/1984 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Gokak and the suit was pending as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition for various reliefs. Therefore, it is contended that the Land Tribunal has not followed the rules for inquiry as contemplated u/s.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules and Sections 17 & 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Land Tribunal has failed to issue public notice or notice to the petitioner before considering Form No.7 filed by respondent No.3. No opportunity has been granted. No opportunity has been granted. Therefore, the order is hit by violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, he pleaded for quashing of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in No.LRA/GK/11/19/7677 dated 30.06.1979 as per Annexure-A. The records are secured by this court through the learned Government Advocate. 3. I have heard the arguments of the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents 1 & 2 and also the counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 4. I have carefully perused the entire records. 5. Earlier, this court has dismissed this Writ Petition vide order dated 15.10.2003 on the ground of delay and latches as the impugned order was passed in the year 1979 itself and the challenge was in the year 1985, i.e., after lapse of six years. Secondly, the petitioner has no locusstandi to challenge the said order. Against that order, a Writ Appeal No.7918/2003 was preferred and vide order dated 9.3.2004, the said Writ Appeal was also dismissed. Against those two order and judgment, a Special Leave Petition was preferred [(Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.15294/2006)] in Civil Appeal No.3638/2006 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein vide order dated 21.4.2011, the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the following order: “We set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench as well as the order dated 15.10.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge to decide it afresh on merits in accordance with law. However, all the contentions shall remain open to both the parties. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 6. In view of the above said judgments of this court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that earlier this court has not disposed of the case on merits considering the contentions of the parties, but only on the ground of delay and latches as well as considering the locus-standi of the petitioner, the Writ Petition was dismissed. In view of the above said observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is incumbent upon this court to dispose of the matter on merits. 7. In view of the above said observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is incumbent upon this court to dispose of the matter on merits. 7. The leaned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended before this Court that after coming to know about the order of the Land Tribunal, he filed the suit before the Civil Court and also challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal as stated in the memorandum of the Writ Petition. He further contended that there is no dispute with regard to the tenancy of respondent No.3 over the property but the dispute is only with regard to the extent of the property which was under tenancy by respondent No.3. It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that respondent No.3 was only in possession of 4 acres of land on the northern side of the property. Though only 5 acres of land was claimed by the petitioner, the Tribunal has granted 5 acres 36 guntas of land over and above the claim made by respondent No.3. Further added to that, the respondent No.3 was only in possession of 4 acres of land on the northern side as tenant, but without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the Land Tribunal has granted 5 acres 36 guntas to the tenant is challenged as illegal. Though the original owner of the land was a party before the Land Tribunal, he has not placed any material with regard to the selling of 9 acres of land in favour of the petitioner herein. Therefore, there was no opportunity to the petitioner to apprise the facts before the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Counsel contends that it is a fit case to remit the matter to the Land Tribunal to consider the contentions of the petitioner and then to pass appropriate orders. 8. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 strenuously contended that the Land Tribunal before granting occupancy rights has got measured the land which was in actual possession of the tenant and thereafter making all enquiries with regard to the property in possession of the tenant, granted 5 acres 36 guntas which was in actual possession of the tenant. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any mistake. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any mistake. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 produced before this Court the proceedings taken place before the Civil Court which are concluded in OS No.37/1984 wherein the Civil Court has granted decree only to an extent of 7 acres 4 guntas of land excluding the portion of the land granted to the respondent No.3. The said suit was disposed of after due contest and the petitioner has given evidence before the court and admitting the possession of respondent No.3 over the said portion of the land. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner has approached the appellate court in RA No.28/2009 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak and the same came to be dismissed on 13.11.2013 confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Of course, the petitioner has approached this court by way of second appeal in RSA No.10075/2014 as per the submission of the counsels and that the same is pending before this Court. The learned Counsel further submits that the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate court discloses the possession of the petitioner to the extent of 7 acres 4 guntas and also the possession of respondent No.3 to the extent of 5 acres 36 guntas which was granted to him by the Land Tribunal. Therefore, considering all the surrounding circumstances, there is nothing for this court to once again remit the matter to the Land Tribunal because the granting of occupancy rights is not in dispute and not contested. But only granting of the extent of the land i.e., 5 acres 36 guntas instead of 4 acres is in dispute. Therefore, he contends that there is no need to remand the matter to the trial Court. 9. In this back ground, the leaned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several rulings of this court. Before adverting to whether the matter has to be remitted to the Land Tribunal or not, this court has to see the said rulings. 10. In a decision reported in ILR 2005 KAR 6059 between V. Bhujanga Shetty Vs. The State of Karnataka rep. by Revenue Secretary and Others, wherein this court has held that:- “Sec.48-A of Kar. Before adverting to whether the matter has to be remitted to the Land Tribunal or not, this court has to see the said rulings. 10. In a decision reported in ILR 2005 KAR 6059 between V. Bhujanga Shetty Vs. The State of Karnataka rep. by Revenue Secretary and Others, wherein this court has held that:- “Sec.48-A of Kar. Land Reforms Act: Enquiry under – petitioner, subsequent purchaser of several items of the properties from the original owner, after the appointed day the impugned order does not disclose the name of the petitioner. Held – It is the duty of the revenue authorities to make necessary entries in the owner’s column by mentioning the name of the petitioner who has purchased the lands from the previous owner after the appointed date. The Land Tribunal has not issued notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order – Order of the Land Tribunal is liable to be set aside.” 11. In another ruling reported in 1978 KLJ (1) 75 at paragraph 3, the court has observed that – “In regard to grant of occupancy right in respect of survey No.149/1 and 149/2, the order of the Tribunal suffers from serious legal infirmities. Survey No. 149/1 according to Record of Rights, measures 11.20 acres. The Tribunal has held 1 acre out of Survey No.149/1 has vested in the State Government. The application in Form No.7 does not show the demarcation of the portion of the land claimed by the second respondent. Similarly, the notice under Form No.9 issued to the petitioner also does not demarcate that portion of the land. The order of the Tribunal also does not demarcate the land.’ Therefore, the court has set aside the said order. The learned Counsel relying upon the above said two decisions has categorically contended that even in this case also Form No.7 filed by respondent No.3 does not disclose the specific boundaries or demarcation of the properties. Further, added to that he submits that the tenant himself was not sure about the extent of the land in his possession. Therefore, in view of the above said decisions, the Land Tribunal has to re-inquire into the matter and consider the application of the respondent No.3 afresh. 12. He also relied upon another ruling reported in 2014 (2) KLJ 429 between Mrs. Seetha @ Shakuntala Vs. State of Karnataka and others. Therefore, in view of the above said decisions, the Land Tribunal has to re-inquire into the matter and consider the application of the respondent No.3 afresh. 12. He also relied upon another ruling reported in 2014 (2) KLJ 429 between Mrs. Seetha @ Shakuntala Vs. State of Karnataka and others. The sum and substance of the observation made in the said case is that – “the validity of the order of the Land Tribunal was questioned on the ground that it was passed without notice to a person claimed to be in lawful possession under registered sale deed executed by previous owner. As a person in possession could challenge the validity of the Land Tribunal’s order only when he came to know of its existence after lapse of over 30 years from the date on which it was passed, when grantee of occupancy rights objected to his name being shown as owner in Land Revenue Records, his Writ Petition challenging the order held was rightly not dismissed on the ground of delay and laches in view of the flagrant breach of principles of natural justice order passed in the Writ Petition set aside. The Land Tribunal’s order with direction to Land Tribunal to pass fresh order after due compliance with principles of natural justice, held, warrants no interference in this writ appeal.” 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends in this particular case also, the challenge was made immediately after coming to know about the Land Tribunal’s order. 14. Per contra, Sri Ravi Balikai, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 relied upon a ruling of this Court reported in ILR 2005 KAR 4852 between Smt. Gangamma and another Vs. Tahsildar and others wherein this court has observed that – “Amendment of the order of the Land Tribunal – Whether permissible Survey report given – application filed to the Land Tribunal to suitably modify its previous order Land Tribunal rejecting the said request on the ground that it does not have statutory power to amend the order.” 15. Tahsildar and others wherein this court has observed that – “Amendment of the order of the Land Tribunal – Whether permissible Survey report given – application filed to the Land Tribunal to suitably modify its previous order Land Tribunal rejecting the said request on the ground that it does not have statutory power to amend the order.” 15. It is clear from second proviso to sub Section (6) to Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 that – “the Land Tribunal may on its own or on the application of any of the parties, correct extent of the land in any order passed by it after causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties. The Land Tribunal has to assign reasons while passing such an order, it may also correct the order passed prior to the insertion of the above proviso, it may be noted in most cases, the applicants for grant of occupancy rights are villagers who are basically illiterate and ignorant. There is every possibility of mentioning wrong survey number in Form No.7 and they may not correctly state the actual measurement of the lands. Keeping in view of this background, the legislature has empowered the Land Tribunal to correct the mistake in the order passed by it earlier, after causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity of being heard the concerned parties.” 16. Relying upon this ruling, the learned Counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that though Form No.7 does not contain boundaries in order to correct the extent of the land in possession, but the Land Tribunal after due inquiry of the possession of the land, got the land measured and thereafter found that the tenant was in actual possession of 5 acres 36 guntas and thereafter only granted the land. The said act has been done by the Land Tribunal when the owner of the land was very much on record giving opportunity to the parties. Therefore, the Land Tribunal has already granted 5 acres 36 guntas of land to the tenant after due inquiry and measuring the land. Therefore, it does not call for interference and there is no need to remit the matter for any fresh inquiry. 17. Therefore, the Land Tribunal has already granted 5 acres 36 guntas of land to the tenant after due inquiry and measuring the land. Therefore, it does not call for interference and there is no need to remit the matter for any fresh inquiry. 17. In the above said background, now the Court has to see: “Whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable or liable to be set aside for fresh inquiry?” 18. It is to be borne in mind that due to long lapse of time and also the extent in possession by the tenant, being recognized by the Land Tribunal and the extent in possession of the petitioner over the property is also being recognized in the suit filed by the petitioner himself. This Court has to very carefully scrutinize the material on record to come to the conclusion that whether the remand of the case to the land Tribunal can be avoided. It is not an invariable rule that whenever any procedural irregularity has taken place, it should result in remanding the matter. The irregularity in following the procedure should result in illegality, then only the Courts have to adhere for remanding the matter in order to cure that illegality committed by the authority. Therefore, though the above said rulings cited by the learned counsels disclose that in most of the matters, the Court has remanded the matter for fresh inquiry, in my opinion, the Court has to visualize the entire material on record and ascertain whether the remanding of the case is an absolute imperative or requirement, or the court can consider the nature of litigation already undergone by the parties and put an end to the lis between the parties so as to avoid future multiplicity of proceedings and complexities in the case. 19. In this back ground, first, let me see the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Form No.7, a copy of which is made available before the Court, clearly discloses that respondent No.3 had sought for occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.54/1+2 measuring 5 acres. The order of the Land Tribunal also discloses that prior to granting of the land, it has got the land measured which was in actual possession of the tenant. Form No.7, a copy of which is made available before the Court, clearly discloses that respondent No.3 had sought for occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.54/1+2 measuring 5 acres. The order of the Land Tribunal also discloses that prior to granting of the land, it has got the land measured which was in actual possession of the tenant. The document which is available is a sketch with respect to Sy.No.54 prepared by FDS, LR, Gokak, on 13/06/1979 discloses that Nagappa Basappa Giddannavar has been in possession of 5 acres 36 guntas and southern portion of the property belongs to Laxman, Annapa and Ramachandra, Shivappa Bhimappa Kuri. On the basis of such record, the Land Tribunal passed an order dated 30/06/1979. The order discloses that the Land Tribunal has made an inquiry on 17/05/1976 and 30/06/1979. The applicant was present and he has stated the he has been in possession of 5 acres 36 guntas of land out of 34 acres 21 guntas in the said survey number along with his brothers Irappa and Chandrayya. In fact, it is specifically stated that the said land was got measured through the first Division land surveyor and as noted above, he submitted a report with regard to the actual possession of the land by the tenant and thereafter considering the said document and also on inquiring the parties, the Land Tribunal has decided that the tenant has been in possession and enjoyment of 5 acres and 36 guntas of land and therefore granted occupancy rights. The records which are available to the Land Tribunal i.e. the RTC extracts also, in my opinion, play a dominant role. The record of rights from 1966-67 shows the name of the persons who are in possession, in the cultivators column. Considering the fact that respondent No.3 was in continuous possession over the property as a tenant, the Land Tribunal has awarded occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3. Therefore, it shows the extent which was measured by the land Tribunal through the land surveyor is with reference to the RTC extract from the year 1966-1967 itself that R3 was in possession of the property as a tenant. Therefore, it shows the extent which was measured by the land Tribunal through the land surveyor is with reference to the RTC extract from the year 1966-1967 itself that R3 was in possession of the property as a tenant. Perhaps the tenant might not be knowing what exactly the extent he has been in possession because he is a poor villager and therefore he could not give the correct extent and boundaries of the said property but in view of the above said decision already noted above in the case of Smt. Government and another, the Court has observed keeping in view the status of the parties, their inadvertence of law, after causing actual measurement, the Land Tribunal can take a decision. In this case also, same thing has been done by the Land Tribunal. The said case is aptly applicable to the present set of facts and circumstances of the case. The measurement of land by the surveyor is not much disputed by the petitioner but his grievance is that he was not given an opportunity at the time of measurement. 20. Now coming to the case of the petitioner, it is his case that he purchased the land in the year 1973, to the extent of 6 acres and about 3 acres in the year 1975. Precisely, he purchased about 9 acres of land under two sale deeds. The boundaries mentioned in the said sale deeds play a dominant role. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo before this Court along with the certified copies of the sale deeds. In the sale deed of 1973, it is clearly mentioned that to the northern boundary of the property of the vendor of the petitioner, i.e.: the remaining property is still there in the same survey number. In the year 1975 another sale deed was executed under which 3 acre was purchased, discloses the boundaries that is, to the north of the property shown as remaining property of the vendor in the same land. This is the property which has been in possession and enjoyment of respondent No.3 as tenant. Therefore, it goes without saying that the northern portion of the property purchased by the petitioner herein there lies the remaining property in the same survey number. According to the petitioner, only 4 acres of land was in possession of the tenant. This is the property which has been in possession and enjoyment of respondent No.3 as tenant. Therefore, it goes without saying that the northern portion of the property purchased by the petitioner herein there lies the remaining property in the same survey number. According to the petitioner, only 4 acres of land was in possession of the tenant. But according to the Land Tribunal and the respondent No.3, it was 5 acres 36 guntas of land which was in actual possession and enjoyment of the tenant. It should be borne in mind that it is the case of the petitioner that after grant of the land by the Land Tribunal, the tenant has made attempts to encroach the land of the petitioner to an extent of 1 acre 36 guntas and it is neither the case of the respondent No.3 nor the petitioner that after purchasing the land by the petitioner, the tenant has actually encroached the land to an extent of 1 acre 36 guntas so as to diminish the extent of purchaser’s land. Therefore, it is no bodies case that subsequent to either purchase by the petitioner or the grant in favour of the tenant, either of them have encroached upon the said land. It goes without saying that both the persons have accepted that they have been in possession of the said land without properly ascertaining the exact extent. But that was ascertained by the land Tribunal while granting occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. Further added to the above said circumstances, though in the sale deeds of 1973 and 1975 as noted above, it is mentioned that 6 acres and 3 acres of land respectively, was sold by the owner out of 34 acres 21 guntas in favour of the petitioner. Even at the time of purchasing the property or prior to or even afterwards at any time, the petitioner has not made any attempts to get the lands measured to ascertain what exactly the extent of land he has purchased which was in actual possession of his vendor. Therefore, the person who purchased the property must be very careful to ascertain what exactly the actual extent of land he purchased though it is mentioned as 6 acres and 3 acres in the sale deeds respectively and what is the actual extent of possession delivered to the petitioner. Therefore, the person who purchased the property must be very careful to ascertain what exactly the actual extent of land he purchased though it is mentioned as 6 acres and 3 acres in the sale deeds respectively and what is the actual extent of possession delivered to the petitioner. Therefore, in order to ascertain the said fact, the petitioner who is the purchaser, at least, should have made attempts to get the land measured to ascertain that there was any over lapping with the land of the tenant which was granted by the land Tribunal. 22. In the above background, it is also worth to note here the proceedings taken place before the Civil Court in O.S. No 37/84 on the file of Principal Civil Judge Gokak, and in R.A.28/09 on the file of II additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. The parties have, absolutely, no dispute with regard to the filing of the suit by the petitioner against respondent No.3 and others and the decree being granted in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 7 acres 4 guntas and the said decree was also challenged in appeal and the appeal was also dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court and R.S.A in No 100075/2004 is pending before this Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 has produced the certified copies of the depositions of the parties to the suit and also the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court for perusal of this Court. The parties have fairly conceded that this court can look into those documents. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 had drawn my attention to the evidence of the petitioner before the Court below in O.S.No.37 of 1984. It is worth to note here that the petitioner in the said Writ Petition has admitted the filing of the suit in O.S.No.37 of 1984. The date of filing of the suit clearly discloses that prior to filing of this writ petition, he had already approached the Civil Court wherein he has categorically admitted with regard to the extent of land he purchased. During the course of his evidence, he has categorically admitted that 4 acres of land in the said survey number has been in possession of respondent No.3. During the course of his evidence, he has categorically admitted that 4 acres of land in the said survey number has been in possession of respondent No.3. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that, he came to know that the respondent has been in possession of 5 acres 36 guntas of land in the year 1983. It means to say, only in the year 1983, after a long time i.e., after grant of the said land to the tenant, he came to know that the respondent is in possession of 5 acres 36 guntas of land. But it is not his case that though in the year 1979, the occupancy rights were granted in favour of the tenant, thereafter the tenant made encroachment of 1 acre 36 guntas in the land of the petitioner, and suit was not for recovery of any possession but for permanent injunction. In the absence of that, it goes to show that even much prior to 1983, as could be seen from the RTC extracts that since 1966 itself, the tenant has been in possession of the said extent of land though it was not known to the petitioner or respondent No.3 because either of them at the time of purchase or at the time of filing of Form No.7, have got measured the land to know about the actual extent and possession thereof. Further, it is also admitted that after measuring the land i.e. to an extent of 5 acres 36 guntas by the competent authority that extent has been granted to the tenant. The trial Court in O.S.No.37 of 1984 has categorically observed that on considering the oral evidence of the respective parties on the date of the first sale deed, the land which was mentioned in the said sale deeds was not measured and the boundaries were not fixed before and after, to ascertain the actual possession by the plaintiff. But plaintiff himself has admitted the possession of the defendant over the land situated on the northern side of his purchased land in Sy.No.53/1+2. The trial Court has also observed that the possession of respondent No.3 has been admitted by the petitioner. Whether, it is 4 acres or 5 acres 36 guntas, irrespective of that, to the northern side of the property purchased by him. 24. The trial Court has also observed that the possession of respondent No.3 has been admitted by the petitioner. Whether, it is 4 acres or 5 acres 36 guntas, irrespective of that, to the northern side of the property purchased by him. 24. Considering all the above said circumstances, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of purchase to the extent of 7 acres 4 guntas which shows that even as on 1973 and 1975, only an extent of 7 acres 4 guntas was available to the landlord for the purpose of selling the same in favour of the petitioner. From 1966 onwards up to the land granted to respondent No.3, after due measurement, it shows that tenant has been in possession of 5 acres 36 guntas. Therefore, if that portion is excluded by virtue of actual possession, there was no occasion for the landlord to sell 9 acres in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, looking from the above said facts and circumstances of the case, at the time of granting occupancy rights, with regard to the actual possession over the property, by the land Tribunal and also before granting of land in favour of the tenant, the land Tribunal has got the land actually measured which was in possession of the tenant and that the petitioner has not got measured the land prior to his purchase and he continued to be in possession of the property only to an extent of 7 acres 4 guntas which clearly discloses that it is not a dispute with regard to the tenancy over the property but it is a dispute only to the extent of land granted in favour of respondent No.3. 25. Appreciating the oral and documentary evidence both the Civil Courts, trial court and the first appellate Court have categorically observed that the plaintiff has admitted that, the purchased properties and the defendants property are bifurcated by a bund and the property that lies to the north of the bund belongs to the defendant (tenant). This clarifies the fact that though the parties does not know the exact extent of their possession over the lands but the boundaries are bifurcated by a bund. This clarifies the fact that though the parties does not know the exact extent of their possession over the lands but the boundaries are bifurcated by a bund. When the suit is not for recovery of possession of the property on the ground of encroachment, it is clear that the parties without knowing the extent of their possession of the land continued to be in possession of the land as per actual possession without any measurement. Even before the civil courts the petitioner has not made any attempts to show that after the grant the tenant has encroached the land of the plaintiff and prayed for recovery of possession of any portion of the land. 26. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case and also the materials available on record, it is clear that the Land Tribunal after ascertaining the fact with regard possession of land by the tenant from the year 1966, got the land measured prior to granting of the said land in favour of respondent No.3. Therefore, the order of the land Tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Though the petitioner is a purchaser of the land prior to grant of the land but in the absence of the exact possession of 9 acres being taken by the petitioner, it cannot be said that he purchased the property to an extent of 9 acres under the said sale deeds. That has also been clarified by the civil Court holding that the petitioner is only in possession of 7 acres 4 guntas. Therefore, no purpose would be served even if the matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh inquiry. 27. In view of the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. Office is hereby directed to return the records pertaining to the Land Tribunal to the learned Additional Government Advocate.