TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents and Mr. S.V. Jagannath, learned High Court Government Advocate, for respondents 4 and 5. 2. In this writ petition the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Haven, dated 24-12-1988 in Case No. TEN. OCP. SR. 32, Sangoor rejecting Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner (since deceased by his L, Rs) claiming occupancy rights in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Civil Petition in No. 75 of 1990 which has been converted into the present writ petition by an order of this Court. 4. Respondent 1-Murahari (since deceased by his L.Rs), respondent 2-Smt. Janakibai (since deceased by her L.Rs) and respondent 3-Smt. Savitribai have claimed that they are the owners of the lands in question and petitioners are not the tenants. 5. The owners were called upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has been compelled to cross-examine them. The Land Tribunal should have adopted the correct procedure. 8. Secondly another important aspect that should be noticed here is that the contesting respondents have not been administered oath when they were allowed to be cross-examined. This procedure is also illegal. 9. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondents has relied on a decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e evidence is prima facie illegal. 11. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24-12-1988 is quashed. 12. The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal, Haven, with a direction to issue notices to all the parties and proceed to dispose off the matter according to law by holding further enquiry, if necessary. 13. The Land Tribunal is directed to di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
