SRI. GOPINATHA SHETTY, S/O LATE SUBBAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O PERUVAJE HOUSE, PERUVAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of land bearing Sy. No. 104/7 totally measuring 3 acres. The respondent No.3 herein had filed an application in Form No.7 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (Hereinafter referred to as the KLR Act for brevity) claiming several lands including the land bearing Sy. No. 104/7. The 4th respondent had also filed a form No. 7 claiming lands bearing sy. No. 101/14 to the extent of 1 acre 20 cents. However, the 4th respondent had thereafter inserted a claim for land bearing Sy.No. 104/7 and the Land Tribunal, Sullia, by its order dated 13.07.1977 had granted occupancy rights in favour of the 4th respondent in land bearing Sy.No. 104/7C to the extent of 1 acre 4 cents and in respect of land bearing Sy.No. 104/14F to the extent of 1 acre 81 cents. By a separate order the Land Tribunal, Sullia, had granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of land bearing Sy.No. 104/4 P1 to the extent of 80 cents, 104/6 P1 to the extent of 43 cents, 104/7 B2 to the extent of 1 acre 36 cents and 104/10 to the extent of 1 acre 76 cents and that Sy.No. 104/11 P1 to the extent of 57 cents. As against the order of such grant in favour of the 4th respondent a writ petition was filed in WP No. 19713/1992 by the third respondent. This court by its order dated 29.05.1998 had allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the tribunal dated 13.07.1977 as well as the order dated 01.10.1981 in so far as the grant of land in so far as sy.No. 104/7C measuring 1 acre 4 cents and land bearing Sy.No. 104/7B2 measuring 1 acre 36 cents and the matter was remanded to the tribunal for fresh consideration.

(3.) On such remand it is the petitioners allegation that no enquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and it was not land , as defined under Sec. 2(18) of the KLR Act. Therefore it had no jurisdiction to grant the land at all and it is further contended that respondents No.3 and 4 have not produced any documents to show that they were the tenants of land bearing sy.No. 104/7. The copy of the RTC extracts for the year 1968-69 to 1971-72 would reflect that it is not the respondents who were in possession. It was clearly indicated that it is in the possession of the petitioner and the mode of cultivation is also indicated and therefore it must be given credence as to the petitioners' claim. The respondents had not rebutted the revenue entries by tendering any evidence and even the later RTCs for the subsequent years are found to be in the petitioners' name. Though the respondents No.3 and 4 are said to have tendered evidence in the year 2005 they sought grant of the land based on the alleged spot inspection and it is pointed out that the petitioner had specifically objected to the spot inspection as having been conducted behind his back and without notice to him and therefore was not binding on the petitioner. It is these primary contentions that are enlarged in the grounds raised in the petition in contending that the respondents could not have been conferred occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No. 104/7.