Y V SRINIVASA RAO Vs. ERANAIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for contesting respondents 6, 7, 8 (a) and 10 (b) though the other contesting respondents 1, 2 (a) and 2 (b), 3 to 5, 9, 10 (a), 10 (d) and we) are served long back and have remained unrepresented.

(2.) THE petitioner in this petition has challenged the order of the land tribunal, yelandur taluk, dated 19-2-1989 granting occupancy rights to the contesting respondents 1 to 10 herein. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner-sri sridhar and the deceased petitioner-srinivasa rao who is the father of sridhar were the landlords of the lands in dispute and it is also not in dispute that these lands have been leased to respondents 1 to 10 almost 30 to 40 years back.

(3.) AFTER coming into force the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as amended by Karnataka act 1 of 1974 these respondents have filed an application in form 7 praying for grant of occupancy rights in respect of these lands leased to them. On issuance of notice by the land tribunal, the petitioners, both father and son appeared before the tribunal and contested the claim on the ground that both being soldiers serving in the Indian Air force and army respectively, the lease created or continued by them is permissible under Section 5 of the act. Further it was contended that the land leased or continued by soldiers will not automatically vest with the government as per Section 44 itself. There is a special machinery provided and as there was no automatic vesting of the land, on coming into force of act 1 of 1974 the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the case of grant of occupancy rights to the respondents. Evidence in this regard was recorded by the tribunal and by the impugned order the tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioners on the ground (a) that there is no evidence produced by the petitioners herein to show that the land in question had been inherited first by srinivasa rao and then by his son sridhar; (b) that they had admitted tenancy of the respondents; (c) the case of the petitioners that even though said srinivasa rac retired in 1966 he has entrusted the management or ownership to his son sridhar is surprising and an afterthought; (d) it is not established that sridhar, the petitioner herein was not looking after the land in question; ana (e) that it is not established that srinivasa rao, the father of the present petitioner was looking after the land. The tribunal also rejected the contentions of the petitioners on the ground that as under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 srinivasa rao, should have filed an application for resumption of the lands immediateiy after his retirement and as he has not done so, the tenancy is deemed to be continued and as such the Provisions of Section 5 (2) of 1961 act are not attracted. Accordingly, the tribunal proceeded to grant occupancy rights to respondents 1 to 10 herein.