BISTAPPA RAMA NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in both these revision petitions have challenged the order passed by the II Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi, in appeal No. DAAA. AP. 329/86, dated 15-9-1989, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi, in case Nos. LRM. SR. 6620 and 6621, dated 31-12-1981.

(2.) PETITIONERS applied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 2 measuring 5 guntas and 2 acres, 3 guntas in Sy. No. 16 of Hadalagi Village in Sirsi Taluk, belonging to the 3rd respondent. The Land Tribunal after holding an enquiry came to the conclusion that the original tenant/bhimappa, father of the petitioner in LRRP No. 13 of 1990 had surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the father of the 3rd respondent herein, who was the landlord and delivered back possession of the said land in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948 (for short, the "act") and thereafter, the name of respondent 3 was entered in the revenue records and the land is shown to be 'under personal cultivation of him' till the notified date in all the relevant RTC extracts. The Land Tribunal therefore, rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in dispute. At this stage, it is relevant to note that it is the case of the petitioners in both these revision petitions that in a family partition, the land measuring 1 acre 1 gunta was allotted to the share of the petitioners in LRRP no. 7090 of 1989 and 1 acre 2 guntas of land was allotted to the petitioners in LRRP No. 13 of 1990 and both of them were continuing in possession and cultivation of their respective shares of the land in dispute till the notified date. Petitioners challenged the said order of the Land Tribunal dated 31-12-1981 before this Court by filing W. P. Nos. 1590 and 1591 of 1982. Subsequently, the said writ petitions came to be transferred to the Appellate Authority after constitution of the appellate forum under the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the said appeals are numbered as DAAA/wp/ap. 329/86 and daaa/wp/ap. 36/86. The Appellate Authority after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce their further evidence and on reappreciation of the entire material evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was not a tenanted land on the notified date and the said entire land was under personal cultivation of the owner namely, the 3rd respondent in both these revision petitions and that there was valid surrender of tenancy rights under the provisions of sections 15 and 29 of the Act by an order dated 29-11-1954 passed by the Mamlatdar and that thereafter, possession of the land was delivered back to the father of respondent 3. who was the original owner and landlord in respect of the said land. The Appellate Authority therefore, concurred with the findings recorded by the Land Tribunal and dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Petitioners therefore, filed these revision petitions challenging the said order of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides and the learned Additional Government Advocate.