LEO D' SOUZA Vs. LAKSHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has set aside the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal and dismissed Form 7 in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 112/6C of Kairangla Village, Bantwal Taluk, to an extent of 4 acres 18 cents. The material on record discloses one Thoduguli Shankar Bhat, was the owner of the aforesaid land along with other lands. After coming into operation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended, one Babi D'Souza filed an application under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, under Form 7 claiming that he is a tenant under the Thoduguli Shankar Bhat, and requested for grant of the said land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights by its order dated 25-10-1976, which came to be set aside by this Court in a writ petition preferred remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand, again the occupancy rights were granted on 26-3-1987, which was again challenged before this Court and the said order also came to be set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal. Again after remand, the Land Reforms Tribunal granted occupancy rights by an order dated 11-12-2009 on the basis of the report of the spot inspection. It is that order which was been challenged before this Court. This time this Court set aside the said order and held that the aforesaid land is not a tenanted land and accordingly, Form 7 came to be dismissed. It is against the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned order contends the appellant is cultivating this land subsequent to 1-3-1974 and they are in possession of the property and they are giving rent to the landlords. This is confirmed at the time of spot inspection. They have raised trees and crops. Therefore, the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal granting occupancy rights was legal and valid and the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in interfering with the said order. Therefore, he submits a case for interference is made out.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order.