SARASWATHIBAI Vs. THIMMAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.05.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 5122/2007 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant herein. For the purpose of convenience, we would like to retain the ranks of the parties as per their ranks in the writ Court petition.

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the important aspects involved in this case, it is just and necessary to bear in mind few facts that prompted the appellant to approach this Court by way of Writ Petition. It is an undisputed fact that the lands bearing survey Nos. 287 measuring 25 acres, survey No. 317 measuring 9 acres 36 guntas and survey No. 142 measuring 20 acres situated at Sindi Kurubet Village, Gokak Taluk, District: Belgaum are the lands originally belonged to one Sri V.R. Desai of Sindi Kurubet. The petitioner is no other than the legal representatives of the said V.R. Desai. The respondent No. 1 claiming himself to be the tenant of said lands, has made an application under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Tribunal at the first instance rejected his claim. Consequently, he challenged the said order by way of writ petition in No. 13417/1981, which was allowed and the application was restored on to the file of the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After the remand, the Tribunal held that the 1st respondent was a tenant of the land as on the appointed date i.e., on 01.03.1974 and granted occupancy rights in respect of the said lands. It appears, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, one of the parties died and Tribunal has passed the order in favour of a dead person. On that ground, the order of the Land Tribunal granting the occupancy right in favour of the respondent was challenged in the writ petition No. 41960/1993. This Court allowed the said writ petition on the ground that the order passed in favour of dead person is a nullity and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for holding fresh enquiry. The Tribunal once again held a detailed enquiry and on 29.11.2006, passed an order granting occupancy right in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of the above said lands. The said order was challenged by the writ petitioner/appellant herein by way of writ petition. The learned Single Judge after going through the materials on record has come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in granting the occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 1 and consequently dismissed the writ petition, against which the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Sri Kulkarni countering the above arguments submits that all the contentions had been properly considered and addressed by the Land Tribunal and the learned Single Judge and there is no room to interfere with the impugned judgment.