TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (9) TMI 633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Adv. ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel 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 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 by the Land Tribunal to file written statement (Leki Javab). After the owners filed their written statement, the Land Tribunal directed the petitioner, to cross-examine them. Accordingly the Counsel for the petitioner cross-exam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 of this Court in B.N. Seetharamaiah and Others v Land Tribunal, Virajpet and Others, wherein it has been laid down by this Court that if the Court is satisfied that no prejudice whatsoever is caused to the parties, even though the summar....