MALLAPPA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL NARGUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL REJECTING FORM 7 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

(2.) I HAVE HEARD THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AND PERUSED THERE CORDS OF THE CASE.

(3.) THE PETITIONER FILED FORM 7 CLAIMING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THE TRIBUNAL BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD OBTAINED THE RIGHT ON ADVANCE LEASE FROM THE DECEASED FATHER OF SHETTAPPA FAKKIRAPPA KURI AND EVEN AFTER THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS HE CONTINUED TO CULTIVATE THE SAID LAND WITHOUT ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDLORD. ON THAT BASIS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS OF THE LEASE, THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE LANDLORD AND THE TENANT DO NOT EXIST BETWEEN THE PARTIES. BUT, THIS IS A WRONG INTERPRETATION OF LAW DONE BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS PER SECTION 6 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, NO TENANCY OF ANY LAND SHALL BE TERMINATED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PERIOD FIXED FOR ITS DURATION WHETHER BY AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE HAS EXPIRED. THIS COURT HAS ALSO INTERPRETED THIS SECTION IN THE CASE OF GURUSIDDAIAH CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH V LAND TRIBUNAL, BAGALKOT, AS FOLLOWS: