SANDAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the respondents 3 to 6/appellants is directed against the impugned order dated 10-1-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27983 of 2004 (LR). The brief facts of the case are:

(2.) We have perused the grounds urged by the appellants in the memorandum of writ appeal and heard the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties.

(3.) The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants is that, in fact, the name of one late Kuppanna, father of the appellants 2 to 4 has been shown in the ROR for the years 1972-1973 to 1974-1975 in column 12(2) which shows that they are cultivating the said land as tenant. Further, he submits that the name of Venkataramaiah is also shown in the record of rights, but not recording his name by the Village accountant does not take away his right to claim tenancy in respect of lands in question. Further he submits that, the Land Tribunal in the year 1987 and also by order dated 9-2-2004 has granted occupancy rights in their favour and whereas, the petitioners/respondents 4 to 6 have not produced any documents to show that they are the actual owner of the lands in question and as on 1-3-1974, the lands were not vested in the Government, except index of land and producing concocted decree obtained on compromise in O.S. No. 176 of 1986 between late Rukmini Bayamma, W/o. Dhruvarayachar and Venkatappa that the mortgage has been redeemed by the mortgagee. But without considering the said aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.