REDDIVARA NARAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the rival tenant's writ petition questioning the order of the land tribunal, bagepalli in case nos. Lrm. K. 26-10 and lrm. k. 26-3, dated 16-9-1980 rejecting form No. 7 of the petitioner as well as respondent 3. the lands in question bearing sy. No. 155 measuring 6 acres 26 guntas, sy. No. 185 measuring 4 acres 10 guntas, sy. No. 569 measuring 3 acres 38 guntas and sy. No. 568 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas are shanbogue inam lands. In respect of the said lands, the petitioner-Smt. reddivara naramma, filed an application under Section 48-a of the Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy in respect of sy. No. 155 measuring 6 acres 26 guntas, sy. No. 185 measuring 4 acres 10 guntas and sy. No. 569 measuring 3 acres 38 guntas claiming to be the tenant under the shanbogue adi subbaiah. So also, the respondent 3-sadashiva reddy filed form No. 7 for grant of occupancy in respect of sy. No. 568/1 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas and sy. No. 569 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas claiming to be the tenant under the very same shanbogue adi subbaiah. It appears, the shanbogue had filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 for regrant of shanbogue inamthi lands which was pending before the appropriate authority. The land tribunal registered the applications of both the tenants in nos. Lrm. k. 26-10 and lrm. k. 26-3. The land tribunal rejected the claim of the tenants on the ground that the disputed lands in question have not been regranted in favour of the shanbogue and therefore, not entitled for registration of occupancy. The order of the land tribunal was questioned by respondent 3-sadashiva reddy in W. P. No. 6614 of 1981 before this court. This court by an order dated 7-7-1983 quashed the impugned order of the land tribunal and remitted the matter for fresh disposal in strict compliance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka land reforms rules. The petitioner-Smt. Reddivara naramma also questioned the order of the land tribunal in W. P. no. 40771 of 1982 before this court. This court by an order dated 21-7-1986 transferred the proceedings to the land reforms appellate authority, for disposal in accordance with law. The appellate authority registered the case at the first instance in No. Dlr. appl. r 362 of 1986 and later on renumbered it as No. Alraa 199 of 1987. Subsequently, on the establishment of the appellate authority at chickballapur, the appeal was transferred to the appellate authority, chickballapur and numbered as dlra 73 of 1990. While the proceedings were pending, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 9 of the Karnataka land reforms appellate authority rules read with order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC praying to adduce additional evidence. As the appellate authority came to be abolished, the petitioner filed cp No. 5725 of 1991 which came to be converted to the present writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Sri h. r. venkataramaiah, for the petitioner contended that the order of the land tribunal is erroneous and not sustainable in view of the clear Provisions of Section 44 of the Land Reforms Act wherein it is the land tribunal which has to grant occupancy in respect of the lands cultivated by the tenant. It is secondly contended that it is clear from the Provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act that by virtue of the Provisions of the act that all the lands including the village offices hereditary lands are deemed to have been vested with the state from the appointed date and that the village office holders and such other persons are entitled to claim regrant of the land in accordance with the Provisions of the act. It is also contended that the shanbogue has also filed an application for regrant whereas the petitioner being a tenant has filed necessary application in form No. 7 before the land tribunal for grant of occupancy. So also respondent 3 also filed an application, but the land tribunal without considering the application only on the ground that the land in question has not been regranted to the shanbogue has rejected which is not sustainable in law. therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition with a direction to the land tribunal for grant of occupancy as claimed in form No. 7.

(3.) THE learned counsel Sri h. r. venkataramaiah, in support of his contentions above relied on the recent decision of this court in the case of ningappa (deceased) by l. rs v state of Karnataka and others, and contended that the tribunal need not wait till the lands are regranted by the competent authority in favour of the holders of the village. On this ground also, he prays to quash the impugned order and to direct the land tribunal to consider the application for regrant.