SIDDAPPA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dtd. 7/11/2006, passed in Belagavi NR-194, by the Land Tribunal, Belagavi, the instant writ petition is filed.

(2.) The petitioners are said to be the legal heirs of the landlord of the lands, which are the subject matter of the writ petition and respondent Nos.3 to 9 are said to be the tenants. The lands, which are the subject matter of the writ petition, are as follows:

(3.) The petitioners were allotted the lands in question under the Provisions of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (for short "the Act, 1874") in the year 1934. There was a bar on leasing the said lands. In spite of it, the forefather of the petitioners leased the same in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9. After Independence and State Reorganization, it is submitted that the lands were regranted to the forefather of the petitioners in the year 1968. Thereafter, the petitioners renewed the lease to the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9. As on 1/3/1974, the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 was in cultivation of the said lands. On the ground that he was tilling the lands on the relevant date, the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 filed Form No.7 and sought for occupancy rights. This resulted in several proceedings before the Tribunal as well as before this Court and in W.P. No.4393/1998, this Court come to the conclusion that the forefather of the respondent Nos.3 to 9 was cultivating the lands in question, which are Sanadi Inam Lands and the same was leased by the forefather of the petitioners to the forefather of respondents 3 to 9 herein and the forefather of respondents 3 to 9 filed Form No.7. The fact that the lands were leased in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 and that they were in cultivation of the lands on the relevant date has been upheld by this Court in W.P. No.4393/1998. However, on the issue whether the lease was validly granted in favour of the tenant, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties concerned has come to the conclusion that the tenancy in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 is valid in law and has conferred occupancy rights on respondent Nos.3 to 9 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.