SANGANAGOUDA B. MALTPATIL AND OTHERS Vs. BHAGHAVAN CHAND S/O. HIMMAT MAL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., (OAK CHAND S/O. BHAGHAVAN CHAND, MOHAN CHAND S/O. BHAGHAVAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are directed against the order passed by the Land Tribunal, 'Shahapur dated 10.07.2002, whereby it has granted occupancy rights in respect of the land in question in favour of Bhaghavan Chand since deceased by his legal representatives [respondent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) in W.P. Nos. 29700 -29708/2002 and respondent Nos 3(a) and 3(b) in W.P. No. 35868/2002]. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the lands in question were under the management of the Court Receiver and that the Court Receiver had auctioned the cultivation rights in favour of Bhaghavan Chand from time to time. That is how his name was entered in Column No. 12 of the record of rights. He further submits that Column No. 6 of the record of rights would clearly indicate that the lands were under the management of the Court Receiver. Having regard to Section 108 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 ('Act' for short), the other provisions of the Land Reforms Act are not applicable. Therefore, question of granting occupancy rights in favour of Bhagawan Chand does not arise. In this connection, he has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Basavanneppa Shivappa Haveri Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, ILR (2002) KAR 1497 and Ashokrao Janardhanarao Shirgurkar Vs. The Land Tribunal and Others, (2006) 3 KCCR 1557 . It is further argued that these questions have not been considered by the Land Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that even the sale deeds in respect of the lands in question have been executed in favour of the petitioners by the Court Receiver in the year 1982.