NAGAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Srikrishna for Sri A. Keshava Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Sri M. G. S. Reddy, High Court Government Pleader for respondent 1 and respondent 2 and the learned Counsel, Sri A. V. Gangadharappa for respondent 3.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners in possession of the land mentioned in the schedule having inherited the rights of their predecessor late Sesu Master and they are in possession and enjoyment of the land. The 3rd respondent claiming that he was the tenant under the predecessor of the petitioners had filed Form 7-A before the Land Tribunal, Belthangady for registration of occupancy right in respect of certain lands in Venoor Village. The Land Tribunal after enquiry had granted certain lands to the 3rd respondent by its order dated 12-12-1977 in No. LRY 8/75-76 as per Annexure-B. The 3rd respondent had not claimed S. No. 24/2 and even according to the survey conducted by the Land Tribunal, the schedule land was not in possession of the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, he filed Form under Section 7-A claiming occupancy right in respect of this S. No. 24/2. The Assistant commissioner, Puttur, passed an order granting occupancy right in favour of the 3rd respondent vide order dated 25-1-2001 in No. GDIS LRF: 12, 13, 19/98-99. This order is questioned in this petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has passed the order mechanically without applying its mind. Further, the application itself was not maintainable as the 3rd respondent made two applications earlier claiming occupancy right in respect of other lands and this survey number was not included in these applications. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have rejected the application. He also submitted that there is absolutely no material to hold that the respondent 3 is in possession of the property and he was never a tenant. No evidence also was recorded notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have filed their written objections whose name is found in the R of R for the year 1974. Even the lease deed also does not refer to in respect of this survey number. For the foregoing reasons, he submitted that the petition may be allowed.