NAGAREDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE LAND TRIBUNAL, REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY, HUNSUR TALUK, HUNSUR, SRI H.K. SUBBARAYA SHETTY, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND SR. THIMMARASA BOVI@RE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/appellant herein has assailed the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 33112/2011(LR) dated 18th October 2011. In W.P. No. 33112/2011 filed by appellant herein, he had sought for quashing the order dated 27th July 2011 passed by the second respondent.

(2.) THE only grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that, the appellant claims to be a tenant in respect of the lands in question situated at Mookanahalli Village, Hunsur Taluk. The third respondent claims to be the owner of the land, now represented by his legal representatives and the fourth respondent is stated to have purchased the said land from the third respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application is alleged to have been filed by the appellant for registration of occupancy rights before the second respondent -Land Tribunal. Being aggrieved by order passed by the Land Tribunal, dated 20th April 2002 in Reference No. KLRF.43/88 -89 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Hunsur, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 20725/2002 and the said matter had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 7.4 March 2007 and the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed and the order passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back to Land Tribunal for conducting fresh enquiry and specifically directed the Land Tribunal to give a finding as to whether the appellant/petitioner proves that he submitted an application in Form No. 7 on the basis of the secondary evidence and also find out whether the land was tenanted land and whether the petitioner/appellant is a tenant of the land in question.

(3.) THE said matter had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 18th October 2011 and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, holding that the authority has recorded a finding that when there is no application in Form No. 7, question of considering the said application does not arise and that the tribunal has also found that the land in question is not a tenanted land in as much as on 01 -03 -1974, the land is required to be cultivated by the tenant, which is not forthcoming and rejected the said writ petition. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the second respondent -Land Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, referred above, the appellant felt necessitated to present this writ appeal.