SHIVAPPA NEELAPPA KALLI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE father of the petitioners was the owner of land bearing Sy No. 114/2b of Kondoji Village in Hanagal Taluk. He sold the same to one Ulavappa. However, the petitioners filed application in Form 7 before the Land Tribunal seeking grant of occupancy rights on the ground that they continued cultivation of the land as tenants despite sale made by their father. Even the 3rd respondent and two others claimed occupancy rights over the same land While the Chairman of the Land Tribunal opined that occupancy rights shall be granted to the petitioners the members of the Land Tribunal have a disagreed with the same and opined to grant occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent. Accordingly, it was granted on majority opinion by the order impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, It is clear from the order of the Land Tribunal that the application filed by the 3rd respondent was in respect of Sy No. 114/2a and not for Sy No 114/2b. Despite that, the Land Tribunal by majority opinion granted occupancy rights in his favour in Sy No. 114/2b. The same is contrary to the law laid down in the decision reported in 1978 (1) Kar L J 48 (Basappa vs. Land Tribunal, Bagalkot) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner In that decision it is held that occupancy rights cannot be granted in favour of a person who is not an applicant It is further held that in view of Section 48 (8) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 the Tribunal has no Jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights to a person who has made no application within the time allowed Therefore, grant of occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent is bad in law Added to that, the 3rd respondent is the owner of the land in question having purchased the same from Uluvappa under the sale deed Annexure-R2 A true owner of the land cannot claim occupancy rights for his own land and the Land Tribunal cannot grant the same. The application of 3rd respondent as per Annexure-B is dated 4. 8. 1974 and the sale deed at Annexure-R2 in his favour is dated 4. 4. 1975. Subsequently he gave evidence before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights instead of withdrawing his Form 7 application. His evidence is found at page 299 of the original records wherein he has stated about the registered sale deed in his favour. The members of the Land Tribunal without application of mind to this aspect, have concluded to grant of occupancy rights for his own land in his favour was lost sight of by the members of the Land Tribunal. For this reason also the impugned order granting occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent is liable to be quashed.

(3.) THE Land Tribunal has not considered properly the evidence brought on record. Hence, the matter has to be remanded only to consider the claim of the petitioners.