BALASAHEB VENKATESH KHASBHAG Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ .petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Land Tribunal, Belgaum, dated 10-6-1976, by which occupancy rights have been granted in favour of Yellappa Tippanna Ramannavar in Survey No. 48 of Khasbag village and in favour of Mallikarjuna Balappa Ramannavar in Survey No. 16 of Khasbag village, Belgaum Taluk. Res- pondent-3 filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in Survey No. 48 of Khasbag village and respondent-5 filed Form No. 7 in respect of Survey No. 16 of Khasbag village. There have been some litigations in the past between the owners of the lands and the present respondents 3 and 4. One of those proceedings, pertaining to resumption of land under Section 14 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLR Act'), was initiated by Lakshmi Bai, mother of the petitioner.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in a family partition dated 30-1-1961, these two lands have fallen to his share and, therefore, he has become the owner of these lands and, as such, he is entitled to challenge the order of the Land Tribunal.

(3.) Before the Land Tribunal, the tenants impleaded Lakshmi Bai, the mother of the petitioner, as the respondent. The petitioner filed an application and got himself impleaded as a respondent before the Land Tribunal and filed objections, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'E'. In the objection statement filed before the Land Tribunal, the petitioner, inter alia, contended that he has been serving in the Military and, hence, the lands in question cannot be given to the tenants. He also contended that in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Urban Land Ceiling Act'), the proceedings before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights were not maintainable. This contention was raised since the lands were sought to be included under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, though on 25-11-1975, the date of filing of the objection statement, the Urban Land Ceiling Act had not been promulgated. The fact that respondents 3 to 5 are the tenants is not in dispute.