HANUMANTHAPPA KALLAPPA DYAVANNANAVAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner sought occupancy rights in respect of two sy. Nos. 10/6 measuring 10 guntas and 64/4b measuring 1 acre in akkivalli village, hangal taluk in form No. 7 filed by the petitioner. He mentioned that other than the lands referred to above, he was the owner of sy. No. 64/3 measuring 25 guntas and sy. No. 44 measuring 7 acres and 12 guntas.

(2.) AT the first instance, the land tribunal made an order on 3-3-1976 rejecting the petitioners claim for occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 10/6 measuring 10 guntas on the ground that the petitioner was the owner thereof. Thereafter, the petitioner's claim for occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre of land in sy. No. 64/4b was taken up by the land tribunal and by an order dated 12-10-1981, the land tribunal conferred occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 64/4b measuring 1 acre of akkivalli village. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 15478 of 1984 contending that he is a tenant of 7 acres and 12 guntas of land in sy. No. 44 of akkivalli village, having been a lessee for more than 30 years paying rent to the 6th respondent. The petitioner claims that at the time form No. 7 was filed by him seeking occupancy rights in respect of the tenanted lands, on account of illiteracy, he got the form No. 7 filled up by a neighbour. The scribe of the form No. 7 mentioned sy. No. 44 measuring 7 acres and 12 guntas in the lower tabulated column of form No. 7 and mentioned it as being owned by the petitioner. Apparently, 10 guntas of land in sy. No. 10/6 was written in the wrong tabulated column, i. e. , the column meant for seeking occupancy rights, while he was in fact, the owner thereof. The petitioner claims that on 12-10-1981, no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was told that the natter was adjourned and the next date of hearing would be intimated. However, the petitioner came to know of the order Annexure-B conferring occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 64/4b only. The petitioner claims that he was unaware of the order dated 18-3-1981 and soon after he came to know of the same, he has filed this writ petition challenging the non-consideration of his request for occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 44 measuring 7 acres and 12 guntas at akkivalli village. In the writ petition, the petitioner also sought amendment of form No. 7 by incorporating sy. No. 44 in the petition, so far as it relates to 7 acres and 12 guntas of land. The writ petition has come back to this court after passing through the land reforms appellate authority, without any orders being made other than some superficial and in-consequential amendment. On a civil petition, the records of the land reforms appellate authority were secured and registered as this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the 6th respondent has sought to resist the claim on the ground that the petitioner has no right to seek an amendment of the form No. 7 by indicating that occupancy rights in respect of 7 acres and 12 guntas of land in sy. No. 44 of akkivalli village. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Virupaxappa Basappa v Land Tribunal, Dharwad and others and Seethadevi V Narayana Kamath and others and R. Krishnaswamy Rao v Lakshmaiah Setty and others. The first two decisions referred to above have laid down that after 30-6-1979, the last date for receipt of an application in form No. 7, no applicant can seek an amendment of the form No. 7 by incorporating a new sy. No. In the form No. 7 for purpose of grant of occupancy rights.