STATE Vs. SHALLIGHATTADA NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, assailing the correctness of the common order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk dated 22nd August, 1979 in respect of Case Nos. LRF. 1623:74-75, LRF:328. 74, LRF:317:74-75 and lrf:324:74-75, insofar as it relates to registration of occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 4 to an extent of 13 guntas (Sy. No. 83), 11 guntas (Sy. No. 83), 01 acre 28 guntas and 01 acre (Sy. No. 76 and Sy. No. 83 respectively) and 21 guntas (Sy. No. 83) respectively situate at Chikkallasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk, has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE only grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the lands in Sy. Nos. 76 and 83 of Chikkallasandra, being a jodi village are classified as Government tank and out of the said survey numbers, occupancy rights to an extent of 01 acre 28 guntas (Sy. No. 76) and 03 acres 26 guntas (Sy. No. 83) have been confirmed in favour of respondents 1 to 4 when the lands in question are Government tank. When things stood thus, it appears respondents 1 to 4 have filed Form 7 for registration of occupancy rights. The said applications had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 22nd August, 1979 and the Land Tribunal clubbing the applications filed by the respondents 1 to 4 along with various other applications filed by the applicants, has passed a common order, conferring the occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 4 in respect of Sy. Nos. 76 and 83. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the petitioner-State has presented the instant writ petition.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Government pleader appearing for the petitioner-State is that, the Tribunal has committed an error in not verifying the original records before registering occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 4. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the lands in question are tank bed lands and the property belongs to Government and no tenancy can be conferred on any person on the tank bed lands which are reserved for public purpose for utilization by the general public and no individual can claim the rights over the lands that are reserved for specific purpose. To substantiate the said submission, he pointed out that, as per the village map, the lands in question are tank bed lands and this aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal while conferring the occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 4. He submitted that, i the Tribunal ought to have noted that, the lands in question are not agricultural lands. When the lands in question are not classified as agricultural lands, the question of entertaining the applications filed by the respondents 1 to 4 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the said lands does not arise. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated and concluded by the Tribunal is bad in law and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules.