LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-525

N. SUNDAR RAJ MAJOR S/O NARAYANA RAO Vs. THE CHAIRMAN LAND TRIBUNAL SIDLAGHATTA AND SRI T.N. RAMA RAO S/O NANJUNDAPPA

Decided On August 08, 2012
N. Sundar Raj Major S/O Narayana Rao Appellant
V/S
Chairman Land Tribunal Sidlaghatta And Sri T.N. Rama Rao S/O Nanjundappa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in. W.P. No. 158/2002 dated 11.12.2007 is called in question in this appeal. According to the appellant, his father late Narayana Rao had filed Form No. 7 for grant of Occupancy Rights under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 claiming 1 acre 39 guntas of land in Sy. No. 61 of Gorlagummanahalli in Sidlaghatta Taluk, Kolar District. The same was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 17.12.1981. Being aggrieved by the order of the rejection of the application, writ petition was filed before this Court in W.P. No. 38870/ 1982, wherein the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry. On remand, the Tribunal again confirmed its earlier order and dismissed the application. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) Form No. 7 is filed by the father of the appellant Narayana Rao claiming to be the purchaser of the property from one Rama Rao, who is the second respondent in the Writ Petition. The said application was filed on 15.12.1980. Rama Rao is none other than the brother-in-law of appellant's father Narayana Rao. In other words, Rama Rao was the Uncle of the appellant herein. It is not in dispute that Rama Rao as owner of the property has sold the same in favour of the first respondent in 1969. When the property has been sold by Rama Rao in favour of the first respondent in 1969, the brother-in-law of Rama Rao could not have filed Form No. 7 claiming to be the purchaser. Form No. 7 could have been considered by the Tribunal provided there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant. When there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to record the evidence and keep the application of the appellant's father pending for all these years.