IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1096-1097 OF 2002

Arun Kumar ....Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka and Anr. ....Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.  Challenge in  these   appeals  is  to  the order passed by

a learned Single Judge of  the  Karnataka High Court allowing

the civil revision filed under Section 121(A) of the Karnataka

Land  Reforms  Act, 1961 (in short `the Act'). Challenge  in the

petition  was  to  the  order  passed  by  the  Land  Reforms

Appellate  Authority,  Dharwad (in short ‘Appellate Authority’)

Respondent  no. 3  had  filed  the   petition.    The    Appellate

Tehsildar has endorsed his findings on the document itself. It

is necessary to refer to Sections 7 and 41 of the Act which

provide  for  restoration  of  possession  under  certain

circumstances. The procedure for recovery of such possession

is  also  prescribed.  Undisputedly,  no  such  application  was,

however, filed by the respondent no.2. Additionally, no action

was taken by respondent no.2 for grant of tenancy rights from

1955 till 1974.

13. Above being the position, the High Court's order is clearly

indefensible and   is set  aside and the order passed by the

Appellate Authority is restored.

14. The appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.

     …………………………..J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

     …………………………..J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi, April 7,  2008