ALICE PINTO Vs. SITHARAM SHASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge who has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights.

(2.) The subject matter of the dispute is, land bearing Sy.No.254 measuring 69 cents and Sy. No. 277 measuring 6 cents, situated at Kodailbail Village. Cashmir Fernandes filed an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. In the first round of litigation on 30.10.1981 the occupancy rights were granted. In the Writ Petition preferred against the said order, this Court set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand, by an order dated 14.10.1987 the application of Cashmir Fernandes was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order he preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority which came to be rejected affirming the order of the Land Tribunal. Against the said order of the Appellate Authority, CRP No. 3944/1989 was preferred before this Court. This Court by an order dated 23.7.1993 set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. Again after such remand and enquiry, Form No.7 came to be rejected by an order dated 15.7.1997 on the ground that the land in dispute is not an agricultural land. The applicant is not an agriculturist tenant and therefore the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is not applicable. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant Cashmir Fernandes preferred W.P. No. 25634/1997 before this Court. The learned single Judge by a considered order dismissed the said Writ Petition holding that the land do not fall under the category of agricultural land but on the other hand it is the house property coming within the municipal area. Merely because few fruit bearing trees are grown, that does not alter the nature of the lands from non-agricultural to agricultural lands. The applicant is a Central Government employee working in the Coir Board and he was not an agriculturist nor was there any relationship of land lord and tenant in respect of the land in question. Therefore, he did not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the Land Tribunal and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition. It is against the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants assailing the impugned order contended that, though there is no mutation entry in the name of the original applicant either prior to 1.3.1974 or subsequent to 1.3.1974, the other material produced on record clearly shows he was in occupation of the land, cultivating the same as a tenant. In fact by filing suit for ejectment against his brother-in-law in execution of the said decree, he had been thrown out. He filed an application for redelivery which application has been allowed and the said order has become final. In the said proceedings it has been held that he is a tenant in respect of the schedule property. Though the house is situated in Sy. No. 277, the agricultural land is situated in Sy. No. 254 which is a garden land, the trees are all grown by him and now they are yielding fruits and therefore he submits a case of tenancy was made out which has not been properly appreciated both by the Tribunal and the learned single Judge. Therefore, he submits the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.