NARASAPPA Vs. SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA ODEYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. THIS petition is filed by one Sri Narasappa and Cheluvappa sons of Narasimhaiah claiming to be the tenants challenging the order dated 20. 12. 88 in appeal No. 46/87 on the file of the Appellate authority, Mandya and the order dated 8. 5. 87 in RT No. 245/76-77 of the land Tribunal, Srirangapatna in so for as disallowing the claim of occupancy rights in so for as 3 acres 18 guntas in sy. no. 364 of srirangapatna village with costs.

(2.) FACTS: The lands in sy. no. 364 measuring 7 acres 30 guntas is situated in Srirangapatna taluk. The said lands belong to Sri srikantadatta Narasimharaja Odeyar (for short:erstwhile Maharaja of mysore ). One Suryanarayana Rao son of Subbarama Rao was the owner of the lands in sy. no. 362/1 and 365/1 of Srirangpatna grandfather, father and mother of the petitioners were in possession and cultivation of lands as tenants of erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore and Suryanarayana Rao. Smt. Chennamma mother of the petitioner was the tenant of the said iands. She was in possession and occupation of the lands in Sy. No. 362/1 measuring 36 guntas, 7 acres and 36 guntas in Sy. No. 364, and 3 acres 29 guntas in sy. no. 365 as on 1. 3. 74. In view of their occupation and cultivation of lands as tenants an application under Section 48 (A) in form 7 was filed before the land tribunal, Srirangapatna seeking for occupancy rights of lands in these survey numbers. The Maharaja and Suryanarayana Rao did not object with regard to these lands being tenanted as on 1. 3. 74. The land tribunal got the tenanted lands measured through a surveyor. According to the survey sketch as per petition averments chennamma mother of the petitioner was found to be in possession of 6 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No. 364 in addition to the lands in sy. No. 362 and 365. Chennamma died during the pending of the proceedings and the petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives. Evidence was recorded before land tribunal. The land tribunal by its order dated 8. 5. 87 granted 3 acres 13 guntas in sy. No, 364. The claim in respect of Sy. No. 362 and 365 was rejected the registration of occupancy nghts in respect of Sy. No. 362 and 365 was ordered in favour of Honnaiah son of Honnaiah. The land tribunal also ruled that an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 364 was not cultivable and hence the same was not tenanted. The evidence before the tribunal reveal that there was an agreement between the Maharaja and one Smt. Yvette Karsey Zarfaz under which Scot's Bungalow and surrounding areas were agreed to be sold to a foreign national.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the rejection of the lands in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners filed an appeal to the land Reforms appellate Authority, Mandya. The Appellate Authority, Mandya, vide its order dated 20. 12. 88 while granting occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 362/1 and 365 dismissed the appeal against the rejection of 4 acres 20 guntas in respect of Sy. No. 364. The Appellate Authority ruled that an extent of 3 acres 18 guntas in Sy. No. 364 covering the scot Bungalow and the surrounding areas were not tenanted land and on that basis, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by this rejection petitioners moved this Court by way of revision petition against the order dated 20. 12. 88 passed in appeal no. 46/ 87. In this petition several grounds have been raised in support of the rejection.