N C GANGARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the dismissal of their W. P. No. 26830/2002 [lr], praying to quash the order dated 28. 06. 2002 passed by the Land tribunal, Nelamangala.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: the appellants were the petitioners before the learned single Judge and the claimants before the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala, for grant of occupancy rights of the land bearing sy. No. 125, measuring 1 acre 34 guntas of nelamangala village. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased N. C. Gangaraju and n. A. Ramaiah i. e. , me predecessors of the appellants were cultivating the above said land as tenants prior to 1960. The land in dispute was an inam land attached to the village office of Taiwan. The predecessors of respondent Nos. 3 to 10 herein were the inam holders. After the advent of the Karnataka Village offices Abolition Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "kvoa Act" for short] with effect from 01. 02. 1963, the land stated above stood vested with the Government and the inam Holders were given right to seek the very grant. During the pendency of the application in form No. 7, filed by the deceased N. C. Gangaraju and N. A. Ramaiah i. e. , the predecessors of the appellants in Form No. 7 in Case no. LRF (N)9 23/1975-76, the Tahsildar, nelamangala, initiated the proceedings to evict the appellants from the land in question under Section 7 (1) of the KVOA Act and passed an Order dated 14. 07. 1999 in Case no. 13/78-79 and 195/70-71 despite the fact that the claim of the appellants for grant of occupancy rights was pending before the Tribunal. The Order of the Tahsildar was challenged by the appellants in W. P. No. 224746/ 1999 and this Court vide Order dated 18. 01. 2000 directed the Tahsildar to find out whether the appellants have filed an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal and if Form No. 7 was pending before the Tribunal, the tahsildar was directed not to give effect to the Order of eviction. In view of the abolition of the village offices, the holders of the office were entitled to re-grant of the land and accordingly, the predecessors of the holders of the office submitted an application to the Tahsildar, nelamangala in Case No. HOACR. 13/78-79 and HOACR. 195/70 and the applications were considered and the lands were re-granted to the legal heirs of the office holders vide Order dated 23. 08. 1985. It is the claim of the appellants that their predecessors i. e. , deceased N. C. Gangaraju and N. A. Ramaiah were cultivating the lands in dispute lawfully prior to 1960 and continued to be in occupation of the said lands as tenants as on 01. 02. 1963 i. e. , after the abolition of the village office and therefore, claimed the occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal by submitting Form No. 7. The enquiry was held by the Land Tribunal and vide orders 'dated 28. 06. 2002 rejected Form No. 7 of the appellants and aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants filed the writ petition before this court and the learned single Judge has dismissed the petition holding that the appellants were not lawful tenant as on 01. 02. 1963 and in the circumstances, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants have approached this Court in appeal. Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 have filed their objection statement and it is their specific allegation that the predecessors of the appellants were not the tenants of the disputed land and that they have created false and fictitious documents showing their names in the record of rights and that they are not the lawful tenants as on 01. 02. 1963. So far as the production of the record of rights from 1960-65 with an application before this Court, it is their contention that the said documents are fabricated and they are not challenged. They claimed that the appellants have no right to seek production of the documents for the first time in this appeal. It is also the contention that they are in continuous possession of the property as inamdars and that the land was re-granted in their name and as the appellants are not the lawful tenants, they contend that the Tribunal and also the learned single Judge of this Court have rightly rejected the request of the appellants for grant of occupancy rights as ordered by the Tribunal and confirmed in the writ petition. On these grounds they have sought for dismissal of the appeal.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the remaining respondents.