NARAYANA DEVADIGA Vs. SHARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 21-3-1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mangalore, in Appeal no. LEA. T. 152/88 Man, allowing the said appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, dated 26-4-1988 in l. R. T. No. 3071/78-79 and rejecting the claim of 1st respondent for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land measuring 23 cents in Sy. No. 117/1a of Jeppinamogaru Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada district.

(2.) RESPONDENT 1 filed Form 7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 23 cents in Sy. No. 117/1a of Jeppinamogaru Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. It is the case of the original petitioner-K. Narayana Devadiga that the said land has been mortgaged in his favour on 28-12-1945 under a registered mortgage deed by the then mulagenidars, Augustin Pinto and his wife Brigitas Menazes for a consideration of Rs. 300/- and ever since that date, the petitioner has been in possession and cultivation of the above said land by raising fruit bearing trees and vegetables. Subsequently, the mulagenidars had obtained permission from the owner i. e. , Father Muller's Charitable Temple, kankanady. for the outright sale of mulageni rights in favour of the petitioner and accordingly permission was accorded on 7-6-1948. Thereafter the mulagenidars sold their right and interest to Smt. Maire hengsu and Kochappa Devadiga for a consideration of Rs. 600/- under a registered document dated 11-6-1948 subject to the mortgage under the deed dated 28-12-1945 in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner continued with his possession of the property as "chalageni Tenant" on an annual geni of Rs. 12/- as per the oral agreement between him and Smt. Maire Hengsu and Sri Kochappa Devadiga. The petitioner dug an irrigation well and started raising coconut trees, banana plants and other useful fruit bearing trees and growing different kinds of vegetables apart from using a portion of the land for dairy farming and poultry farming.

(3.) THE Land Tribunal, after holding an enquiry, granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner in respect of the above said land. The said order has been challenged by 1st and 2nd respondents before this Court in Writ Petition No. 19587 of 1979 and the said writ petition came to be allowed b5r this Court setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. After holding a fresh enquiry, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner in respect of the above land. The said order has been set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9722 of 1982 and the matter was again remanded to the Land Tribunal for holding a fresh enquiry by an order dated 11-12-1984. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal again by majority opinion granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 26-4-1988 in Case No. LRT. 3071/78-79. The said order has been challenged by respondents 1 and 2 before the Land reforms Appellate Authority in Appeal No. LRA. T. 152/88. The Appellate Authority, after giving opportunity to both parties to lead their evidence and on reappreciation of the entire evidence placed on record, passed the impugned order dated 21-3-1989 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal and rejecting Form 7 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present revision petition.