SHARANAPPA CHANNABASAPPA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL HAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions under Art. 226(l)(b) and (c) of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Haveri in case No. TVN.OCP.SR.,6 +47 + 155/75-76. dated 31-3-1977, in so far as it pertains to the rejection of their claims. Hence both the petitions are disposed by a common judgment.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 5077 of 1977, the petitioner No. 1 is the father of the second petitioner. It is not in dispute that the lands Survey Nos. 324 and 325 of Haveri, originally belonged to the 3rd respondent (Sri Shivaputradevaru Guru Rudradevaru Hondadamath of Byadgi). It is also not in dispute that these two lands were leased to the first petitioner under a registered lease deed dated 21-5-1953 for a period of 99 years. The case of the petitioners in WP 5077 of 1977 is that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 being the father and son respectively both were living together and the lease created in respect of the aforesaid lands was a joint family lease, and while enjoying the lease-hold properties as members of the joint family, petitioners 1 and 1 came to be divided, and in the said division between the two, the land survey No. 324 came to be allotted to the share of the 1st petitioner and the other land came to be allotted to the share of the 2nd petitioner and in accordance with the division they have been enjoying these two lands. On coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, as amended by Act 1 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the petitioner No. 1 filed an application in form No. 7 claiming occupancy right in respect of lands bearing Survey Nos. 324, 325 and 168 of Haveri. The petitioner No. 2 also filed a separate application in Form No. 7 claiming to be registered as an occupant of the land bearing Survey No. 325. One more person by name Sharanappa Channabasappa Huralikopi of Haveri-petitioner in WP. No. 5878/ 77, also filed an application in Form No. 7 claiming to be the tenant of 3 acres of land in Survey No. 168. All these applications were clubbed together and a common enquiry was held by the Land Tribunal, Haveri and a common order was passed.

(3.) The Land Tribunal has rejected the claim made by the petitioners in WP. No. 5077 of 1977 in respect of the land Survey No. 325 on the ground that it was not at all open for the first petitioner to subet the land Sy. No 325 to the 2nd petitioner and in view of this sub-letting, the first petitioner was not cultivating the land Sy. No. 325 personally on 1-3-1974 and the cultivation of the said land personally by the second petitioner was not as a lawful tenant in view of the fact that his possession was not lawful and therefore, he was also not entitled to be registered as an occupant. Consequently, the claim made by the petitioners in respect of Survey No. 325 came to be rejected. As far as the claim of the first petitioner in respect of the land Survey No. 168 is concerned, the Tribunal has partly allowed that claim and has ordered that the first petitioner should be registered as an occupant of the said land to the extent of 17 acres 11 guntas and has rejected his claim in respect of 3 acres. The claim made by Sri Sharanappa Channabasappa Huralikopi the petitioner in WP. No. 5878/77, in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 168 has also been rejected on the ground that the land in question was originally cultivated by the first petitioner in WP, No. 5077/77 as a tenant and the 4th respondent in WP. 5077/77 (Sri Karimsab) on behalf of the Mosque obtained possession of 3 acres of land out of Survey No. 168 from the first petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5077/77 for personal cultivation and that being so, it was not at all open for the 4th respondent to lease the same to respondent No. 5 Sri Sharanappa Channabasappa Huralikopi, in view of the bar contained in S.19 of the Act. The contention of the first petitioner in WP. No. 5077/77 in this regard, is that even though there was an order for taking possession of 3 acres of land out of Sy. No. 168 in favour of the 4th respondent Sri Kashimsab, but nevertheless, the first petitioner was not dispossessed of that portion and the possession was not taken from him and in spite of that order, he continued to cultivate the land as a tenant and he was paying the rent Therefore, on 1-3-1974, the first petitioner was cultivating personally the entire land comprised in Sy. No. 168 and hence, it is his further case that the rejection of the claim made of the 1st petitioner to the extent of 3 acres in Sy. No.168, is not tenable.