GANGYA NAIK Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are owners. They have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned Order at Annexure-K dated 3-2-2003 passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of 2nd respondent in respect of 7-20 acres in Sy. No. 132/c and 3. 00 acres in Sy. No. 129/c of Adavimallanakere village.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners that proper enquiry was not conducted and sufficient opportunity was not given to them, is wholly untenable and liable to be rejected. At an earlier point of time the order dated 13-7-1977 rejecting the Form-7 application was quashed by this Court in W. P. No. 5690/94 and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal conducted enquiry. From the impugned order it is seen that one Kotra Gowda and another Channaveera Swamy have adduced evidence on behalf of the deceased petitioner. Documents such as the sale deed in his favour, pahani extracts and order passed by the Civil Court have been produced. The three witnesses deposed in favour of the 2nd respondent/tenant have been cross-examined by the counsel for the owners. Therefore, it cannot be said that enquiry was not properly conducted or sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitio-ners. Hence, the first contention fails.

(3.) THE second contention is that the lands are not tenanted. The same is rightly negatived by the Land Tribunal. The two witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner have categorically stated that the 2nd respondent was cultivating the land prior to 1971 and from 1972 he has not cultivated the land. It is significant to note that the lands had been purchased by the petitioner in the year 1972. After purchase, he filed suit in O. S. No. 139/75 and obtained decree. On the basis of the said decree, he obtained possession of the lands from the 2nd respondent on 29-6-1983 by executing the decree in E. P. No. 69/79. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition the petitioners themselves have stated that the suit was filed against the 2nd respondent for declaration and possession. That implies that the 2nd respondent was in possession of the lands until he was dispossessed on 29-6-1983 by executing the decree. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the lands were not tenanted, is factually not correct.