GUDDAPPA KARIYAPPA Vs. FAKIRAPPA DURGAPPAILEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hirekerur dated 13th April, 1989 in case No klr/sr/vlr/24/hirekerur, had filed an appeal on the file of the additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Haveri in LRA No. 116 of 1989. When the matter was pending adjudication, in view of the amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the constitution of the appellate Authority was abolished and the parties were permitted to file a civil petition. Accordingly, the petitioners filed Civil Petition No. 7802 of 1991 and the same is converted into the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioners claiming to be tenants had filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 36/1 measuring 01 acre 08 guntas and the application filed by the petitioners had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal on 7th February, 1977 and the land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners. Assailing the said order, the State had preferred a writ petition in No. 2151 of 1981 before this Court. This Court, after hearing, allowed the writ petition filed by the State and set aside the order passed by the land Tribunal dated 7th February, 1977 and remanded the matter for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. After remand, the matter was taken up for consideration by the Land Tribunal afresh. After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners, giving a specific finding for rejection of their claim stating that, the alleged entry found in the ROR from the years 1968 to 1974 showing the name of the deceased petitioner in the cultivator's column is without any basis and the mode of cultivation is shown as '1'. But, thereafter, as per the Diary no. 853, the deceased petitioner's name has been certified and subsequently, since the land in question came under personal inams as per Diary No. 626, the said land has been vested in the Government. The deceased petitioner has appeared and given the statement that, he is cultivating the land in question but has failed to produce any documentary evidence. After enquiry, it was found that, the land in question was regranted to the inamdar by the Competent Authority and the application of the deceased petitioner was rejected.

(3.) THE principal ground urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the name of the deceased petitioner is found in the Record of Rights from the agricultural years 1968-69 to 1973-74 and thereafter the mutation also has been certified in Diary No. 853 and his name has been continued and he is in possession of the said land as tenant on the basis of the lease and subsequently, he has entered into an agreement of sale. He submitted that, in the agreement of sale, the first respondent has admitted the possession of the petitioner as tenant. He submitted that, this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has proceeded to pass the order contrary to the oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated and completed is contrary to the direction issued by this Court and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the act.