ANNAPPA ACHCHUTH KINI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original writ petitioner Sri. Annappa Achchuth Kini had filed form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights with respect to 1/7th share in Survey No. 46/4, totally measuring 9 guntas 8 annas situated at Kalbhag village, Kumta taluk, Uttara Kannada District. Since this petition is restricted to Survey No. 46/4, the claim of the petitioner regarding other parcels of property is not in question.

(2.) Earlier the petitioner herein had filed Writ Petition No. 32746/1981 calling in question the order passed by the Land Tribunal. By order dated 12.12.1984, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal with respect to Survey Nos. 46/4, 43/1, 44/1, 44/2 and 74/4A1 for fresh consideration and disposal. It was also directed that, the Land Tribunal was required to consider the matter in common, since several applications of rival claimants were filed with respect to the said property. Consequent to the remanding of the matter, the Tribunal has issued notice to all the parties concerned including Moolagenidar-Sri. Krishnappa Ganapayya Kini. On fresh consideration vide impugned order dated 25.03.2003, the application filed by the 3rd respondent Sanna Kanna Uppar who was later represented by his son Kanna Sanna Uppar was allowed to the entire extent of 9 guntas 8 annas granting occupancy rights. It is in this back ground that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Tribunal has in fact given a finding that, the 3rd respondent was earlier in possession of Survey No. 46/2 which was acquired for formation of National Highway No. 17 and thereafter the 3rd respondent came to occupy Survey No. 46/4. It is submitted that, the 3rd respondent was given shelter in Survey No. 46/4 on humanitarian considerations. It is further submitted that, there is no document produced by the 3rd respondent to substantiate his contention that he was a lawful tenant under the Moolagenidar or any of the owners as reflected in the revenue records. It is therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal having arrived at a conclusion that, the 3rd respondent was given a shelter in Survey No. 46/4 on humanitarian grounds and he had no evidence to substantiate his contention that he was a lawful tenant either under the petitioner or the Moolagenidar, his application should have been rejected.