VIRUPAX KRISHNAJI Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL RON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of Survey Nos. 28/1 and 27/1 measuring 2 acres and 35 gunlas and 7 acres and 35 guntas respectively situated in Holemannur village, Taluk: Ron, District Dharwar, owned by respondents 2 to 5, one Ramachandra Virupaksha Purohit claiming himself to be their tenant, filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Ron, for conferment of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act') . It appears the original applicant Ramachandra Virupaksha Grama Purohit died on 17-1-75 and on his death, the petitioners who are his grand-sons and who claim to be his) successors-in-interest, continued the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Before the Land Tribunal, respondents 2 to 5 opposed the conferment of occupancy rights to the original applicant or his successors-in- interest principally on the ground that the lands had been mortgaged to the original applicant and had not been leased by them and therefore the original applicant or his successors-in-interest were not entitled for conferment of occupancy rights. Apparently accepting the plea of respondents 2 to 5, the Land Tribunal by its order d.28-1-76 (Ext.B) had rejected the application, the validity of which is challenged by the petitioners claiming themselves as the legal representatives of the original applicant.

(2.) Before 1 proceed to notice and examine the contention of the petitioners against the impugned order, I propose to deal with a preliminary objection urged by Shri Sureah S. Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent-5. Shri Suresh S. Joshi, vehemently contended that or the death of Ramachandra Virupaksha Grama Purohit, the application filed by him for conferment of occupancy rights abated or terminated and cannot be continued by his successors-in-interest or his legal representatives and therefore the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming themselves to be legal representatives of the original applicant was not maintainable Defore this Court. According to Shri Sureah S.Joshi, 'the 1961 Act' in express terms does not provide for continuance of the proceedings for conferment of occupancy rights and therefore the one and the only order that can be passed by the Land Tribunal is to reject such an application. Shri Suresh S. Joshi urged that such a principle has been firmly settled by Bhimiah J, in WP.10445/76 connected with WP. 10962/76, decided on 13-10-77 I have carefully read the order d/ .13-10-77 of Bhimiah J. to ascertain whether such principle as propounded by Shri Suresh S. Joshi has been laid down in these cases. From the order of Bhimiah J, it is seen that one Shivarudra was an applicant for conferment of occupancy rights and he died on 29-11-75. On his death his! sons who were his legal representatives were not brought on record and the application for conferment of occupancy rights was granted by the Tribunal in these cases on 30-10-76. On these facts, Bhimiah J, held thus :

(3.) An agricultural lease even under the general laws of the land viz, the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Succession Act is heritable and transferable (vide Sec. 109 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and Sec. 306 of the Indian Succession Act). In order to put the matter beyond all doubt and repel any contention to the contrary as urged by Sri Suresh S.Joshi, Sec.24 of the 1961 Act has been enacted which declares that on the death of a tenant, his rights are heritable. When once the rights of a tenant are held to be heritable, it follows that the successors in-interest or his legal representatives as of right are entitled to continue an application filed by the original tenant for conferment of occupancy lights. In my view, the right to seek for conferment of occupancy rights under 'the 1961 Act' is not one of those actions which are covered by the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona (personal action dies with the person) and therefore does not abate on the death of the original applicant for conferment of occupancy rights and that right survives to his legal representatives, who can as of right continue the same.