TEERTHESH S/O SRI. VENKATAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LAND TRIBUNAL AND SRI. ANNAPPAIAH S/O SRI. CHANNABASAVAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. (SRI. BASAVAIAH S/O LATE ANNAPPAIAH, SRI. MA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for to issue writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 12.7.02 passed by the Land Tribunal, Belur Taluk, Hassan District at Annexure 'B' and to quash the impugned order dated 1.1.08 in appeal No. 698/02 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore at Annexure 'D' and also to issue writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner to conduct enquiry and spot inspection to consider Form No. 7A filed by the petitioner and for any other appropriate orders.

(2.) PETITIONER claiming that, he is the tenant in respect of 1 acre 26 guntas of land in Sy. No. 28/1 situated at Savasihalli village, Madihalli Hobli, Belur Taluk; he was giving 5 pallas of ragi per year as a gutta to the owner and that his name is also entered in the pahani records in column No. 12(2) as on the relevant date; the owner was not in the habit of giving any receipt for having received the gutta; he is the member of the joint family; the land in question was sold to one Srinivas Iyengar during April 1944, however, the name of petitioner's mother and uncle continued as tenants under the said purchaser and subsequently, the land was sold to several persons, but the possession of the petitioner was not disturbed and in the pahani extracts the name of the uncle of the petitioner continued; filed form No. 7A under Section 77A of the amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act before the Assistant Commissioner for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said land. The said application came to be rejected by an order dated 12.7.02. According to the petitioner, before rejecting the Form No. 7A filed DV the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner gave no opportunity and the evidence of the parties was not recorded and without looking into the documents produced by the petitioner by way of pahani entries, the Assistant Commissioner came to the wrong conclusion that petitioner is not entitled for grant of occupancy rights, against which, an appeal was preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 698/02, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 1.1.08. Against the said order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, petitioner is before this Court raising several grounds and seeking for grant of occupancy rights in his favour, in respect of the land in question.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, although the property in question was purchased by the 3rd respondent, petitioner continued to be in possession of the same as a tenant and without looking into that aspect and also the entry made in the RTC extracts, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner.