GURUSIDDAWWA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOWEVER enlarged a meaning and interpretation is given to Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), I am still unable to comprehend with the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Gulbarga, in its proceedings No. LRM-TNC-212-75-75, dated 30-7-2002, vide Annexure-'c', granting occupancy rights to the third respondent who had filed form No. 7 against petitioners, who are daughters of his elder brother in respect of the lands which were owned by the father of the applicant and the petitioners' grand father one by name irappa Jevargl.

(2.) IT is in such circumstances, the third respondent claimed the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, i. e. as a deemed tenant as he was in possession and cultivation of the subject lands. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the petitioners' father was no more alive and that the petitioners were married with the help of the third respondent himself by the mother of the third respondent and the third respondent was the only male member of the family. The claim of tenancy rights by a sole surviving male member in respect of the lands owned by the joint family against female members is opposed to all objects and intents of the Act and by no stretch of imagination cannot be considered to be a bona fide or tenable claim.

(3.) IT is no doubt that the parties were before the Civil Court in a suit filed by the petitioners seeking to get out of the clutches of the third respondent praying for a declaration that the third respondent should be relieved from their guardianship and also prayed for release of the lands in their favour but this suit it appears was not prosecuted diligently. Be that as it may, ultimately, the impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 30-7-2002 is one which cannot be said to be an order that can be passed in terms of Section 48a of the Act.