BABU SHANTHAPPA SHEIT Vs. GURU GANGAPPA SHIET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the applicant before the land tribunal is aggrieved of the order dated 12. 12. 1988 passed by the erstwhile Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi, in case No. KSDAAA AP 53/87 in granting occupancy rights in favour of rival claimants who are respondents 1 to 4, who are also claiming that they are legal heirs who have succeeded to the deceased Venkataramana Ganapathy Shiet who is the original applicant in respect of the land bearing sy. no. 3,4,21 and 162 of Heggarani and Hosthota village in Siddapura Taluk, U. K. District, and also rejecting the application of the petitioner and he has further sought for setting aside the order of the appellate authority and to direct the land tribunal to grant occupancy rights in his favour in respect of the aforesaid lands by allowing the Form No. 7 application filed under Section 48a (1) of the KLRF Act) urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) THE brief foots are stated as hereunder for the purpose of considering the rival legal submissions made at the bar on behalf of the parties. The petitioner/applicant and deceased Venkataramana Ganapathy Sheit the original tenant and also respondents 1 to 4 who are rival claimants filed form no. 7 applications independently before the land tribunal Siddapur in respect of the lands in question requesting it to register them as occupants under section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (in short KLRF Act) claiming that they are the tenants and they have been in lawful possession and cultivation of the lands immediately prior to 1. 3. 1974. The petitioner, deceased Venkataramana Ganapathy Sheit and the respondents 1 to 4 who are also the rival claimants claimed their right of tenancy in respect of the lands in question through the deceased Venkataramana Ganapathy Sheit under section 24 of the KLRF Act. The land tribunal after conducting an enquiry under section 48a (2) read with Rule 19 KLRF Rules and section 34 of the KLR Act, passed an order dated 24. 8. 1987 granting occupancy rights in favour of the original applicant deceased Venkataramana Ganapathy Sheit in respect of the lands in question and rejected the application filed by the petitioner and the rival claimants by recording its findings with reasons holding that they are not tenants in respect of the lands in question. The petitioner was aggrieved of the order of the land tribunal filed appeal under section 118a of the KLRF Act before the erstwhile appellate authority questioning the legality of the order passed by the tribunal in rejecting the application of the petitioner. In so far as the rival claimants are concerned they have not challenged the order of rejection of their application, but however they are the respondents in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority.

(3.) THE Case of the petitioner/applicant is that he has been in lawful possession and cultivation of the lands in question, immediately prior to 1. 3. 1974 which fact is admitted by the landlord and further in respect of his claim, he has placed strong reliance upon the Will said to have been executed by his adoptive father deceased Venkataramana Ganapathy Sheit in whose favour occupancy rights were granted by the land tribunal in respect of the lands in question. It is also further contended on behalf of the rival claimants that under section 21 of the KLRF Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of SRI SANGAPPA KALYANAPPA BANGI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VS. LAND TRIBUNAL, JAMKHANDI AND OTHERS reported in JT 1998 (6) SC 363 assignee under the Will is not entitled for grant of occupancy rights in respect of tenanted lands. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the land tribunal and the appellate authority should have considered the recitals in the Will dated 14. 3. 1972 for collateral purpose namely to show that he has been in lawful possession and cultivation of the land as tenant in terms of section 2 (34) of the KLRF Act prior to 01. 3. 1974 and further, learned Counsel Sri Gopal in support of the aforesaid submission placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1982 (2) KLJ 593 and also stated that the original tenant deceased Venkataramana Ganapathy Sheit has lawfully sublet the land in question in his favour which is permissible under the provisions of section 45, 49 of the KLRF Act. Further, it is stated that the fact of sublease of the tenanted land in favour of the petitioner is recognised by the landlord in the instant case, as he has accepted the petitioner has been in lawful possession and cultivation as tenant, which important piece of legal evidence has not been considered by both the land tribunal as well as the appellate authority at the time of passing the impugned orders. In support of this contention, he has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1978 (1) KLJ 382.