B.R. VEERAKYATHAIAH Vs. CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL DODDABALLAPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the matter is identical, both the petitions are taken up together for disposal. By the impugned order, Land Tribunal, Doddaballapur has noted the property in Sy. No. 37, 25/2 and 40/1 are being jointly cultivated by three brothers who represent the original tenant Akkabommakka, on her death and have sought for identification of the shares. However, it appears there is difference between the extent mentioned in the pahani and the survey report. Further, the Tribunal having opined that l/3rd share has to be given to each of them in the land available, has observed that the land has to be shared as per the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and not as per the land owner's wish. Originally Akkabommakka was the landlady and land was granted in favour of all the cousin brothers.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is, the survey report has not been taken into consideration. As per the statement of the landlady who has admitted the tenancy rights in respect of the properties in question, it shall be granted to three of the persons who represented the three branches of the cousin brothers and it is also the wish of the landlady that persons who are in possession and enjoyment, to that extent, they be granted occupancy rights. It appears, there is difference between the claims/extent and vis a vis the survey report. The contention of the petitioners is, property to the extent they are cultivating has to be allowed/granted in stead of dividing it by 1/3rd share.

(3.) While granting occupancy rights, it was for the Land Tribunal to grant the same based on the survey report to the extent each of the parties/tenants were cultivating, though they were brothers. The extent they were cultivating should have formed the basis for granting/allotment of occupancy rights and not strictly as per 1/3rd or l/4th share. Though the claimants are brothers and are cultivating the properties, but if it is found on survey the extent which the claimants are in possession, to that extent only the Land Tribunal has to make available the properties and, it is also the statement of the land owner. Further, although the Tribunal has referred to the survey report while passing the order, as pet the contention of the parties, the said report did not form the basis while allocating the extent.