M NARAYANA RAO Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL HONNALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated Nil of the Land Tribunal, Honnali, passed in its proceeding No.LRC-11/74-75 (Ex. C.) is being challenged in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by one Narayan Rao who was the opponent before the Tribunal in the said proceeding. Thimmappa (second respondent herein) was the applicant before the Tribunal having filed an application in Form No. 7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the Act) claiming occupancy rights in respect of an agricultural land situated in Sy. No. 37 measuring 7 acres 30 guntas of village Balleswara, Honnali Taluk. Narayana Rao had contested the claim. By the impugned order the Tribunal has upheld Thimmappa's claim and has directed that he be conferred with occupancy rights over the land in question.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the land in question was Patel Umbli land (Village Office Inam). The said Inam was abolished on the coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act of 1961) and the land was regranted to Narayana Rao under S. 5 of the said Act

(3.) While challenging the validity of the impugned order mainly three grounds were urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, he contended that the Tribunal has not held a proper enquiry. Secondly, he contended that since the land has been re-granted in favour of Narayana Rao under the provisions of the Act of 1961, whatever rights Thimmappa may have had in the land had been wiped out, and therefore, he could not claim that he was a tenant entitled to occupancy rights. Lastly, he contended that even otherwise, since ho valid lease could have been cr.eated in respect of Village Office Inam, Thimmappa could not be said to have obtained a valid lease from Narayana Rao earlier to the abolition of the village office and cannot therefore be said to be activating the land in question as a lawful tenant and claim occupancy right on that basis under the provision of the Act.