BHAMY PAMDURANGA SHENOY Vs. B H RAVINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Bhamy Panduranga Shenoy has filed this Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 21-11-77, a true copy of which is at Ex-A, parsed by the 2nd respondent-First Land Tribunal, Mangalore, granting occupancy under S.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), in favour of the 1st respondent B.H. Ravindra Pai, in respect of Sy. Nos. 36J6, 3618, 36)9 and 36/ 10, the total extent of which is 3 acres 69 cents (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit lands') classified as Bagayat situate in Bolur 'B' village of Manga- lore City in the District of Dakshing Kannada.

(2.) The suit lands belonged to late D. Manjayya Heggade of Dharmasthala who granted them on permanent lease with effect from 1-11-1934 to the grand-father of the petitioner of the same name, in the year 1937 under Ext-C on an annual rent of Rs. 250. The lease was for residential, industrial, and manufacturing purposes. After the, death of the grand-father of the petitioner, the suit lands came to be owned and enjoyed, by the members of his family. In the year 1973, the suit lands were leased to the 1st respondent by the father of the petitioner Bhamy Upendra Shenoy, his grand-mother Bhamy Sulochana Bai and himself, under a registered term lease deed dated 5-12-1973 Ext-B for a period of 25 years for the purpose of industries, business, trade, manufacturing, residential, cinema theatres etc. on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500 for the first five years and then at Rs. 2000 per month for the remaining period with an option to the 1st respondent to renew the lease at the end of the period fixed for a further period as required by him for the same purposes. The 1st respondent became the tenant Qf the suit lands under the terms stipulated in the lease deed and continued to be in possession of them as a tenant under the petitioner.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed an application in Form-7 as required under S. 48A (1) of the Act on 16-9-1974 for registration of occupancy in respect of the suit lands. The petitioner filed his objection statement on 18-8-1977 as per Ext-D. The 4th respondent who is the successor of the Mulgar, also filed a statement on 10-8-1977. Both the petitioner and the 4th respondent contended that the suit lands are not 'agricultural holding' as they were leased out purely for residential, industrial and commercial purposes and as such the provisions of the Act would not apply.