NARAYANAPPA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, THE CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER B.V. Nagarathna, J. The order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as the "Tribunal" for short), dated 08/06/2012 in Appeal No. 74/2003 (Annexure "N") as well as the order of the first respondent dated 08/01/2013 passed in case No. LRM/137/1999 -2000 (Annexure "K"), are assailed in this writ petition. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 herein - Karagappa, had filed Form No. 7 -A under Section 77 -A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [hereinafter, referred to as the "Act", for short]. Both the applicants were seeking occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 41 to an extent of 1 Acre 22 Guntas. The first respondent by his order dated 08/01/2003 rejected the application of the petitioner and allowed the application of respondent No. 8 and granted occupancy right in respect of Sy. No. 41 to an extent of 1 Acre 22 Guntas. The grant of occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 8 was assailed by the petitioner herein in Appeal No. 74/2003 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 08/06/2012 has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and has consequently, affirmed the grant of occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 8. That order is assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 8 and the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 and perused the material on record.

(3.) ON the aforesaid basis at Para 10, the Tribunal has opined as follows: - 10. Therefore for the foregoing reason we are of the considered view that the appellant cannot maintain appeal challenging grant made in favour of the R -8 as non challenging of rejection of Form 7A application filed by him by the R -1 shows that he has no interest in the land in question. Interestingly herein this case both appellant and R -8 claimed to be tenants and both filed Form -7 A applications for grant of land u/s 77A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. When one of the tenants whose application is rejected not going to challenge the common order passed by the R -1 and restricts his prayer and retain the prayer to the extent of grant order made in favour of R -8 as he is questioning the same and give up the challenge in respect of rejection of his (appellant) Form - 7A application we have no option but to hold that the appeal is not maintainable. Whatever may be reason but question of considering point as to whether the R -8 has fulfilled all the conditions of Section 77A of the Act, whether the R -1 followed the procedure or whether there is proper appreciation of documents and evidence and reason given by the R -1 to grant land in favour of R -8 is proper or not does not arise. If the appellant is/was the owner of the land we would have appreciated. The owners of the have infact not questioned the grant made in favour of R -8. Nothing is forthcoming to show that owners of the land have also challenged the impugned order. If the owners of the land had question the order passed by the R -1 granting land in favour of the R -8 by way of appeal separately and if that appeal had been clubbed for recording common judgment in such event the appellant would have also taken decision on merits of the appeal to be given by this Tribunal. But in view of the above reasoning we hold that the appellant cannot maintain the appeal. Accordingly we answer this point in the negative. When the petitioner has not assailed the rejection of his application filed in Form No. 7 -A, he would have no locus standi to assail the grant of occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 8 as it is only the land lord who could have challenge the grant of occupancy right to Respondent No. 8 herein. If the petitioner had also challenged the rejection of his Form No. 7 -A, the tribunal would have entertained the appeal on merits as Respondent No. 8 is a rival tenant. By not challenging the rejection of Form No. 7 -A filed by the petitioner, it would imply that he has acquiesced to the grant of occupancy rights in favour of Respondent No. 8. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein on maintainability and consequently, affirming the grant of occupancy rights in respect of respondent No. 8. The impugned orders would not call for any interference in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that by mistaken impression, Form No. 7 -A is filed and actually, he is the owner of the said land. Such a stand cannot be taken by the petitioner at this stage when he has consciously filed Form No. 7 -A. The writ petition is, dismissed. No costs.