BOODA POOJARY Vs. THOMA POOJARTHI FB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions are referred for consideration and determination of the Full Bench :

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the purpose of determination of the questions referred are these : One Thungu Poojarthy held leasehold rights in the lands in question; she had two daughters and a son, namely, Thaniyaru Poojarthy, Thomu Poojarthy and Chandu Poojary; Aithu Poojary was the husband of Thaniyaru Poojarthy and son-in-law of Thungu Poojarthy; Aithu Poojary had a son by name Booda Poojary; on the coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974 (for short the Act) Aithu Poojary filed form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal at ADP claiming occupancy rights in all the 20 items of the lands in question stating that he had obtained on lease those lands in his individual capacity from one Narayanachari by executing a chalugeni lease in the year 1961-62; Chandu Poojary did not file Form No. 7, but Thomu Poojarthy filed Form No. 7 before the same land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights over all the lands in question. The Land Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, by the order dated 28-9-1987, granted occupancy rights in respect of 14 items of lands totally measuring 2 acres 99 cents in favour of Aithu Poojary and granted occupancy rights in respect of the remaining 6 items of lands measuring in all 1 acre 20 cents in favour of Thomu Poojarthy. During the pendency of the appeals before the Appellate Authority Aithu Poojary died. The son Booda Poojary came on record. The Appellate Authority, on appeal, modified the order of the Land Tribunal, by its order dated 18-1-1989, and granted occupancy rights of all the 20 items of lands in favour of Booda Poojary and Thomu Poojarthy jointly as members of Aliyasanthana family, leaving the question as to what would be share of the son-in-law in the lands in question for decision of Civil Court, in a Original Suit said to have been filed and pending adjudication in the Civil Court. The Appellate Authority concluded that the leasehold rights were held by Thaniyaru Poojarthy and Thomu Poojarthy as members of the 'Aliyasanthana' and as such 'Aliyasanthana family' was the tenant of the lands in question. Booda Poojary filed C.R.P. Nos. 1084/89 and 3438/89 aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority in this Court.

(3.) The learned single Judge referred the above said Civil Revision Petitions to a Division Bench, on the ground that there is a conflict between the two decisions rendered , by the two Division Benches of this Court reported in I.L.R. 1985 Karnataka 386 (Guruvappa v. Manjappu Hengsu) and 1982 (2) Karnataka Law Journal 565 (Appi Belchandthi v. Sheshi Belchadthi). The Division Bench after consideration felt that two Division Benches of this Court have taken different views as to the scope of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Land Tribunal under the Act while considering the application filed in Form No. 7 and that there was no authoritative pronouncement as to the scope of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Land Tribunal under the Act while considering the application filed in Form No. 7. In this view of the matter, the reference is made for determination of the questions aforesaid by the Full Bench.