CHANNEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent Land Tribunal, Mandya dated 18. 6. 1997 rejecting form No. 7 filed by the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner herein claiming to be the tenant has filed form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 18/3 measuring 30 guntas of land situated Thangalagere village, which was gifted in favour of his wife Smt. Puttalingamma by her father Channegowda of Rajegowdana Doddi. The said Channegowda had two daughters by name smt. Puttalingamma the wife of the petitioner and Smt. Boramma. He had gifted 0. 30 guntas of land each in favour of his two daughters by gift deed dated 12. 11. 1962. The case of the petitioner is that he was cultivating the said land since from several years. After the marriage, the petitioner and his wife were lived happily for about 7 to 8 years. Thereafter, his wife Putalingamma deserted him. The petitioner has took 2nd wife and Smt. Putalingamma began to live separately. But the petitioner continued in possession and cultivating the land in question. When Puttalingamma attempted to create a lease in favour of petitioners brother, a dispute arose between husband and the wife. At that time, panchayath was held and it was decided in the panchayath that the petitioner should continue to be in possession of the land in question as tenant and he should pay four candies of paddy every year as guttige to his wife Puttalingamma. In addition to guttige, the petitioner was also paying maintenance in terms of maintenance decree obtained by her.

(3.) IN view of Sec. 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, on the constitution of the Land Tribunal, petitioner filed form No. 7 seeking occupancy right and impleaded smt. Puttalingamma and Bettegowda 3rd respondent herein as parties. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 29. 5. 1979. Against that order, the petitioner had filed W. P. 8421/1979 before this court. This court has remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After remand, the Tribunal had recorded the statement of the petitioner and his wife and also after considering the material on record, once again rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 25. 8. 1981. Against the order dated 25. 8. 1981, the petitioner again filed W. P. 32554/1981. This court had set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted back the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the matter keeping in view the observation made in W. P. 64821/1979.