S V NANJUNDA BHATTA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art.226(1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Kappa (2nd respondent) dated 18-7-1978, a copy of which is produced at Ext.-E under which the 3rd respondent Vepkatagiriappa was granted occupancy right in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 34 guntas comprised in S. No. 9312 of Agalagandi village, Koppa Taluk in Chikmagalur District.

(2.) The petitioner Nanjunda Bhatta is the, owner of two items of land comprised in S. No. 88/2 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas and S. No.93/2 measuring 3 acres 37 guntas of land The 3rd respondent filed a claim application in form No. 7 on 15-12-1975 under S. 48A (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') for being registered as an occupant in respect of the land comprised in S. No.88/2 and in respect of 1 acre 34 guntas of land comprise,d in S. No. 93 2. The petitioner appeared before the land tribunal Koppa in pursuance of the notice issued to him and admitted the claim of the 3rd respondent for grant of occupancy light in respect of S. No. 88/2. However, he disputed the claim of the 3rd respondent in respect of the other survey, numbep viz., S. No.93/2. The tribunal allowed the claim of the 3rd respondent in respect of S.No 88/2 straightaway and granted occupancy right in respect of that land in favour of the 3rd respondent and proceeded with the enquiry, only in respect of S. N.93/2 since the petitioner disputed the claim of the 3rd respondent in respect of the said survey number. After the enquiry, the tribunal allowed the claim of the 3rd respondent in respect of S. No. 93/2 to the extent of 1 acre 34 guntas of land as per its order Ext.-E. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in this wtit petition.

(3.) Shri Kadidal Manjappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his arguments, advanced two-fold contentions. Firstly, he contended that the provisions of the Act do not apply to S. No.93/2, as no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent since the 3rd respondent had surrendered his tenancy right in respect of the said land under a document executed by him on 25-3-1962, a true copy of which is produced at Ext.-A. His second contention was that since the third respondent was admittedly not in possession of the land and cultivating it personally either on 1-3-1974 (date of coming into force of Karnalaka Act 1 of 1974) or immediately prior to that date he is not entitled to registration of occupancy right under S. 45 of the Act.