LATE HANUMAPP Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the present appeal relates to Sy.No.91 (measuring 4.15 acres) and Sy.No.92 (measuring 8.23 acres) situate in Chikkagubbi village, Bangalore South Taluk, which is being claimed by the appellant on the basis of being in occupation as on the appointed dated i.e., 1.3.1974. The owner of the said survey numbers was respondent No.3-Smt. Puttaboramma. The said survey numbers were sold by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 Smt. Sajida Begum by registered sale deed dated 26.4.1978.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the appellant claims to have filed an application on 3.12.1974 in Form No.7, relating to Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') on 3.12.1974 with regard to the disputed survey numbers, as well as certain other survey numbers also.

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was in continuous possession and occupation of the land in question as a tenant of respondent No.3, and sometime in the year 1969-1970, his name was also recorded in the RTC and as such, according to the appellant, since he continued to be in possession as on the appointed date i.e., 1.3.1974, he would be entitled to the benefit of Section 44 of the Act. It is submitted that respondent No.3 had admitted before the Tribunal (in the first round of litigation) that appellant was cultivating the land in question and in defence, it was stated by the respondent No.3 that the appellant was working as a coolie. It is, thus, submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since it was admitted that the appellant was cultivating the land as a coolie, then too, he was in occupation on crop sharing basis and as such the benefit of Section 44 of the Act ought to be given to the appellant.