SAKAMMANAVARA MUNIYAPPA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL SIDLAGHATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 28-6-2001 passed by the Land Tribunal. Sidlaghatta Taluk, Sidlaghatta, in Case No. LRM/394/74-75. The said order is impugned at Annexure-Z to the petition. By the said order the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner seeking occupancy right in respect of the lands bearing Sy. No. 20-F measuring 27 guntas and Sy. No. 20-G measuring 3 acres 20 guntas of Sonnenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Kolar District.

(2.) The application in Form 7 was filed by Sakammanavara Muniyappa, the father of the present petitioner claiming occupancy rights in respect of the property stated above. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 18-8- 1976 had rejected the claim. The father of the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 11663 of 1979. This Court quashed the said order and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal. The claim was again rejected by order dated 27-11-1993. The petitioner herein had questioned the same in W.P. No. 15684 of 1994. The said order was once again quashed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. After such consideration, the present impugned order dated 28-6-2001 is passed.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the lands in question are said to be originally the inam lands regarding which applications were also filed by the father of the petitioner. Prior to this the property was sold by Sri S. Venkataramaiah in favour of father of the fourth respondent under sale deed dated 6-7-1954. The father of the petitioner questioned the same by filing an application under the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 contending that the sale without notice to him though he is Kadim tenant is null and void. Though initially the said application was dismissed by the Tahsildar, the appeal against the same was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner and the sale was set aside by order dated 27-2-1959 holding that the father of petitioner was tenant under the third respondent. Meanwhile the property vested in view of the inams Abolition. During the said proceedings, there was an order for appointment of receiver and subsequently this Court had observed that the father of the petitioner is in possession of the lands and directed the receiver to put him in possession. Hence, on 16-11-1961 as per the mahazar which was drawn, the father of the petitioner was put back in possession. As stated, the father of the petitioner had filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner. Sri S. Venkataramaiah had also filed an application. By order dated 15-11-1961, the application filed by the father of the petitioner was rejected while the name of Sri S. Venkataramaiah was registered. Against the order dated 15-11-1961, the father of the petitioner had filed an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency the third respondent herein made an application before the Tahsildar, Sidlaghatta for recovery of rent. The Tahsildar by his order dated 19-10-1964 ordered the same to give horse gram and ragi, In the meanwhile the appeal before the Tribunal was allowed, the order dated 15-11-1961 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal by order dated 23-5-1967. The Special Deputy Commissioner reconsidered the matter and by order dated 10-6-1968 held that the petitioner's father is a permanent tenant in respect of the land. The said order was questioned by the third respondent before the Appellate Tribunal and the same was set aside and remanded by order dated 23-6-1972.