GUNAWWA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the district appellate authority, belgaum, dated 5-3-1990 in appeal No. Ralr. 122 of 1988 confirming the order passed by the land tribunal, belgaum, dated 12-5-1988 in case No. Majagaon. Sr. 201.

(2.) ONE appayya, father of the present revision petitioners 2 to 4 and husband of first revision petitioner, filed form No. 7 under Section 48-a, dated 20-12-1974 under the Provisions of the Karnataka land reforms art. , 1961 (in short 'the act') before the land tribunal, belgaum, claiming occupancy rights in respect of majagaon old sy. No. 721, new sy. No. 315 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas and old sy. No. 722 and new sy. No. 316 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas. Respondent 3-the owner of the said lands contested the said proceedings denying that the said appayya was cultivating the above said lands as a tenant. The land tribunal, after holding an enquiry came to the conclusion that appayya was not cultivating the above said lands as a tenant by the notified date and rejected the said claim made by him. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of appayya, who are the revision petitioners herein, confirming the order of the land tribunal, by the impugned order dated 5-3-1990. The appellate authority has taken into consideration the fact that appayya, who filed form No. 7, has given up his claim of tenancy under the terms of compromise recorded in the suit o. s. No. 425 of 1956, on the file of court of civil judge (jr. Dn.), belgaum, filed by respondent 3 herein for permanent injunction and admitted that respondent 3 herein was in exclusive possession of the said lands by the date of compromise decree and agreed to cultivate the lands for the next five years as "servant" of respondent 3 and came to the conclusion that appayya was not in possession of the above said lands as a tenant by the notified date and that he continued in possession of the said lands subsequent to the date of compromise as a licensee. incidentally, the appellate authority also found that the entries in the r. t. c. extracts for the year 1973-74 and earlier years do not disclose the name of appayya as the person in possession and cultivation of the above said lands and that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that he paid "guthige" in respect of the above said lands either to respondent. 3 herein or to his father.

(3.) I have heard Sri h. r. anantha krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, Sri r. u. goulay, learned counsel appearing for respondent 3 and learned high court government pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 2.