MUNISWAMAPPA Vs. MUNISWAMY ALIAS GANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased applicant before the Land Tribunal. They are aggrieved by the rejection of the tenancy claim in respect of Sy. Nos. 101/1, 101/2 and 56/3 of rajenahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk and seeking to quash the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B passed by the Land Tribunal.

(2.) MR. G. D. Aswathanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the statement of the first petitioner and his brother found at pages 54 and 55 of the records of the Land Tribunal are not recorded in terms of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (in short called as 'rules'), by the Chairman; that the finding of the tribunal in Annexure-A is contrary to documentary evidence as name of petitioners' father is entered in the cultivator's column which has got presumptive value under the provision of Section 133 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1964. He further submits that the application of 5th respondent in respect of Sy. No. 101 was rejected by the Land Tribunal in Annexure-B and he has not challenged the said order. Therefore, the rejection of claim of 5th respondent enures to the benefit of the petitioners for considering their claim. Non-consideration of this aspect of the matter vitiates the findings and reasons recorded by the Land tribunal in its order and hence rejection of their claim is bad in law and therefore they have prayed for quashing the impugned order and remit back the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner of the District for reconsideration of their claim.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the first respondent justifies grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 3-05 acres in Sy. No. 10 in favour of first respondent. He placed strong reliance upon the statement of the first petitioner, which statement is endorsed by second petitioner, who have categorically stated that their father and themselves have not cultivated the lands in question, but admitted the cultivation of the land by first respondent. Learned Government Pleader also justifies the impugned orders by placing reliance upon the original Land Tribunal record and RTC records. He submits that the Chairman of the Land tribunal recorded the statements of the first petitioner and other witnesses and it is in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules.