SANJIVA POOJARY Vs. SULOCHANA N NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a prayer made by respondent-3 for vacating the interim order issued on 10-6-1977, this case was posted for orders before me on 9-12-77. At the request of both the parlies, I heard the case on that day on maris. In order to decide some of the controversies raised in the writ petition, an examination of the original records of the Land Tribunal was necessary. I, therefore, requested Shri B.B.Mandappa, learned High Court Govt Pleader, to obtain the records of the Land Tribunal and make them available to the Court. Accordingly, Shri B.B.Mandappa has made available the records of the Land Tribunal on 19-12-1977 on which day they were made available to the learned Counsels for the parties and they were heard again by me.

(2.) In this writ petition, one Sanjiva Poojary who claims to be the son of one Muthu Poojarthi and her legal representative has challenged the order bearing No.TRL 49/1974-75 dt.30-11-76 of the Land Tribunal, Karkala, Dist, S.K., (Ext.A), conferring occupancy rights on his mother in by.Nos.66/2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on an extent of 0-22, 0-83, 0-83, 1-23 and 2-62 acres respectively and on an extent of 0-79, 0-49, 0-22 and 1-30 acres in Sy. Nos.60-10, 66-1, 2, and 6 respectively of Paladka village, Karkala Taluk, in favour of respondent-3.

(3.) On 2-8-1974 Muthu Poojarthi filed an application in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Karkala, claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos.60-10, 66-1, 66-2, 66-3, 66-4, 66-5 and 66-6 measuring an extent of 7 acres and 73 cents of Paladka village, Karkala Taluk and that application was registered as No.49j74-75. In her statement of objections, respondent-3 has asserted that she is the sister of Muthu Poojarthi and that she has also presented an application for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of the very lands for which Muthu Poojarthi has filed her application and that the same has been registered as No.TRL 49]74-75. In the records of the Land Tribunal, I do not find any such application made by respondent-3. In the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that Muthu Poojarthi died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and that he is the sole heir of his mother and is in actual possession and enjoyment of the lands for which occupancy rights were claimed by his mother. Shri U.L.Nararyan Rao, learned Counsel for respondent-3 did not dispute the death of Muthu Poojarthi