ARJUN Vs. TUKARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioners is that, they are the land lords and own certain lands in survey No.769/1, 812/1+2, 813/1 and 814/1 of Telasang Village, Athani Village. That one Ramu Genu Badiga and Nivruthi Parasa Bhosle filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Athani, and the same was allowed and they were granted occupancy rights. Aggrieved by the same, the father of the petitioners preferred W.P.No.2164/1997, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal. When this was the position, Ramu Genu Badiga expired and thereafter his wife also expired. Respondent No.1 claiming to be the legal heir of Ramu Genu Badiga, made necessary applications before the second respondent - Tahasildar to enter his name in the revenue records in the place of Ramu Genu Badiga, on the ground that he is the legal heir of Ramu Genu Badiga, his request was acceded to by the second respondent - Tahasildar and his name was entered in the revenue records pertaining to the lands concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein, on the ground that Ramu Genu Badiga and his wife did not have any legal heir and respondent No.1 is not their legal heir and in fact petitioners being the true owners of the land, their name has to be entered into revenue record, preferred an appeal before the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner, which has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a Revision before the fourth respondent - Deputy Commissioner, which also has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that, Ramu Genu Badiga was conferred occupancy rights in respect of the lands, which are the subject matter of the writ petition and accordingly, his name was entered in the revenue records and after his demise, respondent No.1 being the legal heir, his name has been entered. There is no illegality in the same and on the said ground, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Admittedly, the question regarding granting of occupancy rights in respect of the lands concerned is not finally settled and the matter is pending before the Land Tribunal, Athani. It is for the Tribunal to decide whether Ramu Genu Badiga can be conferred occupancy rights or not and he having expired, it is for the Tribunal to decide whether the occupancy rights as claimed by the claimants can be granted. Further, as the claimant Ramu Genu Badiga has expired, it is for the respondent No.1 to establish that he is the legal heir and he is entitled to pursue the proceedings before the Land Tribunal in the manner known to law. It is further submitted by the parties that the proceedings before the Land Tribunal is being adjourned solely on the ground that the instant writ petition is pending and it is prayed that the Land Tribunal be directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and the instant matter be disposed of reserving liberty to the parties to approach the authorities concerned, subject to the order of the Land Tribunal. Hence the following order: