JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original third respondent Sri G.M.Hanumanthappa, had filed an application in Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in respect of 2 acres and 34 guntas of land in Sy.No.266/1 of Gunjur Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. Earlier the Land Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights in favour of the claimant by order dtd. 9/1/1976. However, on a challenge raised to the said order of the Land Tribunal in W.P.No.7398/1999, this Court by order dtd. 5/8/2005 held that the owner Sri Ramaiah Shetty, was not served with a notice. Notice which was issued to Sri Ramaiah Shetty had returned with an endorsement that he was not residing in the address shown therein. This Court therefore, allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal, for de novo enquiry after seeking notice to all the interested persons and the legal representatives of the owner Sri Ramaiah Shetty.

(2.) In terms of the directions given by this Court, the legal representatives of Sri Ramaiah Shetty were brought on record and notices were issued to the said legal representatives who are none other than the petitioners herein. During the course of the proceedings, after remand, Sri Hanumanthappa, the claimant also passed away and therefore the legal representatives of Hanumanthappa were also brought on record. The Land Tribunal passed the impugned order on 25/9/2014 once again conferring occupancy rights in favour of the legal representatives of the original respondent No.3- Hanumanthappa.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is noticeable that earlier Sri Hanumanthappa had in fact purchased half portion of the land in question under a registered sale deed dtd. 13/7/1960. However, Sri Ramaiah Shetty re-purchased the lands from Sri Hanumanthappa under a registered sale deed dtd. 1/7/1961. Sri Ramaiah Shetty also got the other portion of the property which belonged to his brother Venkataramana Setty under a release deed. Sri Ramaiah Shetty therefore became the absolute owner of 2 acres and 34 guntas of land in Sy.No.266/1. The learned Counsel would further submit that it is the finding of the Tribunal that at Ex.P14 an agreement dtd. 20/11/1971 entered into between Sri Ramaiah Shetty and Sri Hanumanthappa clearly shows that the land in question was given on VARA basis for cultivation to Sri Hanumanthappa. Further, the RTC entries of the years 1972-73 to 2003-2004 at Exs.P5 to P12 reflect the name of Sri Hanumanthappa in the cultivator's column. The learned Counsel however seeks to draw the attention of this Court to the evidence given by the second petitioner Sri Keshava who clearly contended that from the year 1975-76 the petitioners and their family members were in occupation and cultivation of the land in question. It was contended that the earlier entries in the RTC were on the basis of the sale transaction that had earlier happened between Sri Ramaiah Shetty and Sri Hanumanthappa. However, the Land Tribunal has ignored the evidence given by the second petitioner.