The learned Single Judge in paragraph 4 of his judgment observed as follows But, in this case it appears to me that the regular procedure prescribed by the Land Reforms Act for companyferring occopation of the lands immediately prior to 1.8.1974 had been abused by the Chairman and the members of the Tribunal to casue wilful loss to the petitioners and they did number have the companyrage of their companyvictions to stand up to the machinations of respondent 3 the appellant herein who was admittedly a Minister of the State Government at the relevant time.
emphasis supplied On appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court at the instance of the appellant, the Division Bench in para 31 of its judgment observed as follows As earlier observed, we do number find any direct evidence to hold that the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal at the behest of the appellant who exercised his influence on them.
The appellant, the aggrieved party in these two special appeals, was granted leave limited to the question as to whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in passing strictures against the appellant.
But these facts plus the fact that respondent 3 was a Minister in the State cabinet by themselves, in our opinion do number lead to a positive companyclusion that the impugned order is the outcome of the exercise of extra companystitutional power and influence on the members of the Tribunal, yet suspicion is left unerased that the impugned order may have been passed to please respondent 3 or at his behest.
The reference to the appellant in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is in two capacities i as a party respondent companynected with the merits of the matter and ii his brooding presence as a Minister of the time to have influenced the decision making of the Land Tribunal, it being a land reforms matter.
But the facts and circumstances of the case leave numbermanner of doubt that after the passing of a decree in the partition suit, a determined effort which was within the knowledge of the appellant, was made to defeat the claim of Naikwadi family, which in our view was wholly unjustified.
Aruna Devi to deny the possession of the Naikwadi family and defeat their claim.
The facts of the case do reveal the revival of interest of respondents 3 in the land in dispute and the determined effort of Smt.
On merit of the matter, the fate of the cases stands sealed.
On this aspect, it was very fairly companyceded by Mr. Bannurmath, learned companynsel for the writ petitioners, that there was numberevidence to prove any direct link between the appellant and members of the Tribunal.
