K NAGARAJ S/O LATE NAGAPPA SETTY SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.RS. HEMANTH RAJU S/O. LATE K. NAGAIAH SETTY, SMT. K. NAGAMANI D/O. LATE K. NAGAIAH SETTY AND K N PUTTANNA S/O LATE NAGAPPA SETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceedings have a checkered career. The petitioners 1 and 2 claim to be the owners of the lands in question i.e., survey No. 23/1 measuring 3 acres, 3 guntas and survey No. 33/1 which measures 2 acres 9 guntas. Respondents 3 to 5 claiming to be the tenants of the land in question make an application in form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. Initially the Land Tribunal grants occupancy rights in respect of lands in question. The same is questioned by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority but however after the abolition of the Appellate Authority, the petitioners have filed a civil petition which was later converted into W.P.No. 15808/1993. This Court, pursuant to the order dated 9.3.2000, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 20.3.1981 and remitted the applications filed by respondents 3 to 5 to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. A copy of the order passed by this Court is found at Annexure 'D'. After the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh adjudication, notices were issued to the petitioners as well as to respondents 3 to 5. Both the petitioners as well as respondents let in their evidence both oral and documentary. The Land Tribunal having regard to the material produced before it was of the view that respondents 3 to 5 were cultivating the lands in question as tenants ass an the appointed date i.e., 1.3.1974, Hence, granted occupancy rights. The same is questioned in this writ portion.

(2.) IT is to be noticed that during the pendency of these writ proceedings, several applications are filed for impleading on the ground that even before the order was passed by the Land Tribunal, there was an agreement inter -as between the petitioner and one of the impleading applicant and the property was developed and it was sold. The developer as well as the purchaser have also made applications to get themselves impleaded. When the applications were listed before this Court, this Court pursuant to the order dated 27.10.2009 directed that all the impleading applications should be considered at the time of hearing.

(3.) BEARD Mr. K.N. Nitish, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and Mr. G. Manivannan, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 and Mr. G.K.V. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for one of the impleading applicants.