VIMAL APPAYYA MARKAL Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE bharma markal claiming to be the tenant of sy. Nos. 55:2, 55:4, 55:5, 55:7, 528:9 of malaga village filed form 7 prescribed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for granting occupancy rights before the land tribunal, belgaum. In the meantime, the said bharma markal died. Therefore, his wife came on record as his legal representative. After considering the case, the tribunal rejected the claim by its order dated 28-9-1981. As against that Order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the land reforms appellate authority (hereinafter referred to as 'authority') claiming occupancy rights on the ground that the deceased bharma markal had executed a will in his favour bequeathing all the right, title and interest in the property in his favour. The authority by its order dated 4-10-1988 held that the petitioner cannot maintain the appeal and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by that Order, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner being the person in whose favour the said deceased bharma markal executed the will is the legal representative and he is entitled to prefer an appeal claiming occupancy rights over the property. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on a Decision in Dhareppa v State of Karnataka and others, wherein it is held that Section 21 of the act does not prohibit testamentary succession and that it does not amount to an assignment of interest by a tenant and hence a legatee can claim occupancy rights under the act. Further in the said case, this court has also followed the decision in Virupax Krishnaji and others v Land Tribunal, Ron and others , wherein it is held that the tribunal should not stop the proceedings on the death of a necessary party in a proceeding pending before it, but should proceed with the enquiry after bringing on record the l. rs of the deceased. In this case it is not that the deceased was not represented. On the other hand, the wife of the deceased bharma markal namely saraswatibai bharma markal has effectively represented the interest of the deceased bharma markal. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a decision in Timmakka Kom Venkanna Naik v Land Tribunal and others, wherein the division bench of this court has held as follows.