VENKATESHACHAR S/O LATE MANJUNATHACHAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 1, THE. SECRETARY AND THE TAHSILDAR SORABA TALUK LAND TRIBUNAL SORABA, SHIMOGA DIST AND KURO BALINDRAPPA S/O KURO PAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 12.02.2004 passed by the land Tribunal, Soraba granting occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent is called in question in This writ petition. Land bearing Sy. No. 106 totally measuring 9 acres 5 guntas was an ham land. Deceased Kuroparasappa the adoptive father of the 3rd respondent was the tenant of the said land under one Neelakant Rae Nadigar. Occupancy rights came to be granted in favour of the tenant as per the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for In am abolition to an extent of 3 acres 6 guntas. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. Subsequently, Kuroparasappa sold 3 acres 6 guntas of land in favour of his brother's son Kuro Basavannyappa on 23.11.1963. However, the revenue entries continued in the name of Kuroparasappa.

(2.) IT is urged by the petitioner that as objections were raised by the adoptive father of the 3rd respondent for changing the entries in the name of the purchaser Kuro Basavannyappa, the records continued in the name of the Kuroparasappa. It is relevant to notice that Kuro Basavannyappa sold, the property in favour of the present petitioner -Venkateshachar on 04.11.1966. Even after the purchase by the petitioner, the name of Kuroparasappa, the adoptive father of the 3rd respondent continued in the revenue records showing him as cultivator.

(3.) IT is necessary to notice here that the 3rd respondent had filed TNC VR 154/74 -75 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question asserting that he was cultivating the same as tenant. This was resisted by the petitioner. The land Tribunal passed an order dated 27.09.198F conferring occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent. This was challenged in W.P. No. 30645/1993. This Court vide order dated 10.01.2002 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. This Court has observed that the entries in the revenue records no doubt had presumptive value under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act but the presumption was rebuttable one, In this context, this Court has further observed as under: