AIR OFFICER COMMANDING Vs. S M ASHWATHANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 3rd respondent/appellant herein, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 22/11/2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2799/2010(LR), has presented this appeal, wherein, the writ petition filed by the petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein has been partly allowed, holding that they do not have any claim in respect of the land which is acquired and also which in excess of their claim in the suit.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are: the subject matter of the writ petition is a part of Sy.No.36 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta, which is inclusive of 2 guntas of phoot kharab. Petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein, claim to be the tenants of the lands in question. The said land, originally belonged to Sri. Anjaneya Swamy Temple, which is a non Muzrai Temple. The father of the petitioners one Muthurayappa was cultivating the land. Pursuant to its order dated 22.5.1982, the Land Tribunal, after holding enquiry, granted the occupancy rights in respect of the said land in favour of Muthurayappa. After the demise of Muthurayappa, the petitioners are in cultivation of the land in question. The 3rd respondent/appellant, started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the said lands. The father of the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.358/1989 for the relief of possession to an extent of 27 guntas. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 31.1.1996. Aggrieved by the same, 3rd respondent/appellant filed an appeal and the said appeal was also dismissed. Against which, a second appeal was filed in R.S.A.No.313/2006 before this Court. This Court dismissed the appeal, however, with a certain observation that, in the event, the third respondent is in a position to dislodge the claim of the petitioners to an extent of 1 acre before the Land Tribunal, it is entitled to revive the second appeal and seek a modification.

(3.) IN the mean time, the order passed by the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners was questioned by the 3rd respondent before the Divisional Commissioner by way of revision. But however, without impleading the petitioners' father or the petitioners. The Divisional Commissioner passed an order on 19/4/2002, setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal to the extent of 1 acre. The said order was questioned by the petitioners before this Court by way of a writ petition. This Court set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner and remitted the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner insofar as 1 acre is concerned. Insofar as the remaining area, the order passed by the Tribunal stood confirmed. After remand, the matter was enquired into and the Deputy Commissioner having regard to the material on record was of the view that indeed an extent of 1 acre of land was in possession of 3rd respondent/appellant and declined the claim of the petitioners to that extent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have once again approached this Court and this Court, once again remitted the mater to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Once again, after remand, the Deputy Commissioner has reiterated what has been stated earlier inasmuch as the claim of the petitioners to an extent of 1 acre was rejected. The reason for rejection of 1 acre was on the ground that pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, notwithstanding the fact that, an extent of 4 guntas was notified, the 3rd respondent was in possession to an extent of 1 acre and compensation was paid by them for 1 acre. In theses circumstances, the suit, which has been referred to earlier was initiated for declaration and possession.