TIMMAKKA KOM VENKANNA NAIK Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The owner of the lands in question has filed this Writ Appeal against the dismissal of her W.P. No. 6351/1976. The lands are Sy, Nos. 138/1 and 137/1 of Agsur village, Ankola Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. Admittedly the lands were leased in favour of one Hammi kom Somagouda. She died on 6 9-1972. It is an admitted fact that she left no heir. However, the third respondent (Subba Ayugouda) claimed that there was a Will left by Hammi under which the tenancy right of the deceased was bequeathed to him. Basing his right under the Will, the third respondent filed 0, S. No. 156 of 1973 in the Court of the Munsiff at Karwar for a permanent injunction against the petitioner in which there was an order of temporary injunction. Since the question of tenancy was involved, the said issue was referred to the Land Tribunal for determination. It is said that petitioner also filed an application before the Land Tribunal seeking registration as an occupant by mistake and the same was dismissed on 11-11-1975. Thereafter the petitioner received a notice of enquiry from the Land Tribunal, obviously arising out of the claim of respondents 2 and 3, They sought occupancy right under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in respect of four lands. The appellant is not concerned with the other lands except the two referred above. The appellant objected to the claim of respondents 2 and 3. She also disputed the genuineness of the alleged Will, which was being relied upon by the 3rd respondent.

(2.) The Land Tribunal upheld the claim of respondents 2 and 3 on the ground that they were in continuous lawful possession as actual cultivators of the lands in question jointly. For this, the Land Tribunal relied upon the unregistered Will put-forth by the 3rd respondent. A reading of the order of the Tribunal shows that the only basis for its finding was its reliance on the aforesaid unregistered Will as conferring a right to the 3rd respondent as a legatee of the deceased tenant. Having come to the said conclusion, the Tribunal declared that respondents 2 and 3 are to be registered as occupants of the lands jointly. There was also an observation that the said order will govern the reference made by the learned Munsiff, Karwar, in 0. S. No. 156 of 1973,

(3.) The appellant challenged this order of the Land Tribunal. The learned single Judge held that admittedly the lands had been leased in favour of Hammi, who was in possession till her death on 6-9-1972. On her death 3rd respondent and his people started cultivating the lands in question. Therefore, the fearned single Judge proceeds on the assumption that the Tribunal has done substantial justice between the parties and therefore it is not a matter for interference in writ proceedings. There is a further observation that the finding ofthe Land Tribunal regarding the genuineness of the Will will not preclude the appellant from taking appropriate steps available In law to challenge the said finding and that the decision of the Tribunal will be subject to the decision of that forum or authority competent to decide the question of the genuineness of the Will". Writ Petition was dismissed. The appellant has come up in appeal against this order.