TANIBAI RAMCHANDRA PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 30. 4. 2003 passed by Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the legal representatives of deceased respondents 3 to 5 in respect of Sy. Nos. 463/2 and 463/3 of Bidakihal village.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and one Keshava Nimbalkar were cultivating the lands prior to 1958 and on 23. 7. 1958 the 3rd respondent and widow of Keshava Nimbalkar had executed Surrender Deed and pursuant to the same their names had been deleted by M. E. No. 1623 and the name of the landlady was entered in the revenue records from 1965-66 onwards. The copies of Record of Rights are produced as Annexures-B and C series. It is contended that without considering the said important documents the land tribunal erroneously granted occupancy rights. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1979 Karnataka 211, 1979 (2) Kar L. J. 167, 1976 (2) Kar L. J254, air 1969 SC 1190, ILR 1978 Karnataka 1096.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order. It is a lengthy order. At paragraph 14 of the order, the land tribunal considered the alleged surrender. It was found that the three applicants Ravu Arjun Mane, bhavu Arjun Mane and Devu Arjun Mane, who were brothers, filed the application jointly for grant of occupancy rights. But, the surrender was made by Ravu Arjun Mane and Smt. Champabai. The other two applicants have not signed the surrender application. Even their consent for surrender also was not obtained. Added to that, there is no document for having handing-over possession to the landlord. Taking into consideration these aspects, the land tribunal has rightly held that there was no valid surrender.