His claim has beep allowed by the Land Tribunal, but the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside by the Karnataka High Court.
The question for companysideration is whether the High Court after setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh companysideration.
The Division Bench has rejected that request on the ground that the occupancy right claimed by the appellant was number one arising out of agrarian relations.
In fact, this was the only question that was urged in the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The decision of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal.
The scope of the Act is limited to questions arising out of agrarian relations.
This companyclusion seems to have been based on the pleadings before the High Court.
The appellant claims occupancy right under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
