NINGAYYA ERAYYA HIREMATH Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL MUNGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ningayya Erayya Hitemath has filed this appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated March 13, 1985 by which Writ Petition No. 19787/81 filed by him has been dismissed In order to appreciate the controversy certain salient features of the case may be noticed :-

(2.) Land bearing survey number 127 of the village Naganoor, Taluk-Mundgod, District-Uttara Kannada, measures 11 acres 34 guntas. Out of the said land an area of 5 acres and 12 guntas belongs to Rudragowda Bin Gurappagowda respondent No. 5 and an area of 6 acres and 22 guntas belongs to one Danappa Nagappa Vaddar. Rudragowda Bin Gurappagowda, respondent No. 5, had leased the area belonging to him to Siddawwa Kom Uduchappa Vaddar respondent No 3. It transpires that the said respondent No. 3 had sometime in the year 1972, raised a loan by mortgaging her tenancy rights in favour of a Co-operative Society and as she failed to pay the said loan her tenancy right was brought to sale and a sale certificate was issued by the Sale Officer under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act in favour of the appellant, who was the purchaser of the tenancy rights. Claiming himself to be the tenant of the land after the purchase of the tenancy rights under the sale certificate issued by the Sale Officer, the appellant filed an application before the Land Tribunal for conferment of occupancy rights on the ground that he had become tenant of the land sometime in the year 1972 after he was put in possession of the same by the Sale Officer pursuant to the sale certificate. Siddawwa Kom Uduchappa, respondent No. 3, also filed application in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights as rival tenant, on the plea that notwithstanding the sale of the tenancy tights in favour of the appellant, she continued to be in possession of the land and therefore she was entitled to occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal (by majority decision) on the material on record, came to the conelusion that respondent No. 3 continued to be in possession of the land notwithstanding the sale of tenancy rights in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the order dated September 10, 1981 conferring occupancy rights on respondent No. 3 was passed by the Land Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Land Tribunal the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 19787/1981 and, as earlier observed, the writ petition was dismissed being without any merit.

(3.) Though the learned single Judge assumed that the appellant was put in possession of the land by the Sale Officer pursuant to the sale certificate in his favour, yet in view of the provisions of Section 22 (prior to the amendment in the year 1974) of the Karnataka Lend Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which read as under :