THAMMANNA PARISA GUNDALE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who originaly entered as a sub-tenant of agricultural lands, and who claimed occupancy rights under Sec.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (briefly 'the Act') on the ground that he had become a lawful tenant of the land-owner, but whose claim has been rejected by the Land Tribunal, has presented this writ petition praying for quashing the order of the Land Tribunal.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are these: One Subhadrabai, mother of respondent-2 was the owner of 29 acres and 5 guntas of land in Sy. No.474 of Ainapur village in Athani Taluk in Belgaum District. The said lands were leased in favour of Govardhan Dairy Farm Ltd, Poona in the year 1948-49. Govardhan Dairy Farm in turn sub-let the lands in favour of the petitioner. Sec.27 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act') provides that sab-letting of lands by a tenant is invalid and Sec. 14 of that Act provides the various grounds on which tenancy can be terminated and one of them is on the ground of sub-letting, but Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Act fixes the period of limitation of two years to make an application for possession, from the date on which the right to obtain possession accrued. Under these provisions Subhadrabhai instituted eviction proceedings be fore the Tenancy Aval Karkun, Athani, against the original tenant on the ground that they had sub-let the lands in favour of the petitioner. He was also made a party to the proceedings. The claim was rejected and the order was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner. The revision petition to the Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. Against these orders CP.198/69 was filed in this Court under Art.227 of the Constiution. The said petition was also dismissed on 29-11-1961. Thereafter the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records as tenant vide M.C.5955 on 5-1-1962. Thereafter the petitioner paid rents to the mother of the 2nd respondent and after her death he paid the rents every year to her husbond i.e. father of the 2nd respondent, who was a Civil Judge and who has received it. A resumption application was filed by the 2nd respondent represented by his elder brother Prahlad against the petitioner in the year 1966 under Sec. 14 of the Act. The said application came to be dismissed as per order dt.7-10-1972 by the II Additional Munsiff.

(3.) On the basis of the above facts, the petitioner filed an application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of 29 acres & 5 guntas of land in Sy. No.474 of Ainapur village before the Land Tribunal, Athani Taluk under Section 48A of the Act.