DHAREPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dhareppa Guruppa Thakkanavar of Savadi, Taluka Athani, Belgaum District, has filed this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, of India questioning the validity of the order d| 4-11-1976 of the Land Tribunal, Athani, passed in its proceedings Nos.TNC.SR.3462, 2826, and 3732.

(2.) The proceeding in No.TNC.SR.2826 was started before the Tribunal on an application made to it, in Form No.7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the Act) by one Gurappa Satyappa Thakkanavar claiming occupancy rights over Sy.No.549|3 of village Savadi measuring 4 acres 30 guntas. During the pendency of that application he died Claiming to have acquired this lease right of Gunappa Satyappa Thakkaniavar as a legatee under a Will said to have been executed by the said Gurappa Satyappa Thakkanavtar, respondent-5, Ramappa, filed an application, also in Form No.7 of the Act, requesting the Tribunal to register him as the occupant. This application was, registered in case No.TNC.SR.3462, Respondent-4 (herein), Parappa claiming himself to be the lessee of the land in question in, his own right filed an application claiming occupancy right and, this was registered in, case No.TNC.SR.3732.

(3.) Sabu Ambi is the owner of the land. After holding an enquiry, by the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of respondent-5. The petitioner, Dharappa Gurappa Thakkanavar, claims to be the son of Gurappa], the deceased, tenant. His case is that soon after his father's death he had approached the Tribunal with a request to implead him as the legal representative of the deceased and to confer occupancy rights on, him. The secretary of the Tribunal is said to have told him that the legal representatives of deceased Gurappa would be notified in due course and then he may approach the Tribunal. He states that contrary to this assurance and without notice to him the Tribunal had decided in favour of respondent's holding that he had succeeded to the lease right under a Will executed by deceased, Gurappa. The contention of the petitioner is that his father had not executed any Will and, even if respondent-5 had 'any such document with him, it is a bogus one and should not have been acted upon by the Tribunal. If an opportunity had, been given to him to have his say in the matter, he avers, he would have shown to the Tribunal that the alleged Will was not a genuine one, and also would have established his own claim for occupancy right. In support of his contention that he is the son of deceased Gurappa he has placed before this Court a Certificate of Birth issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, l969.