SIDDAPPA APPANNA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL GOKAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The correctness and legality of the order dated 7-1-1977 (exhibit-B). passed by the Ist-respondent-Land Tribunal, Gokak, granting occupancy right in respect of 1 acre 2 guntas of land comprised in Block No. 39412 Benehanamardi Village of Gokak Taluk in Belgaum District is under challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioners who are the owners of the land in question.

(2.) It is convenient to state a few relevant facts necessary for the die posal of this writ petition which are as under: The petitioners are the owners of the land in question. The, 2nd" respondent Kenchappa filed, a claim in form No. 7 on 21-9-1974 claiming occupancy right in respect of the said land under Section 48A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ihe 'Act'). The petitioners appeared before the land tribunal on the notices being served on them and contested the claim of the 2nd respondent. The land tribunal, after holding an enquiry rejected the claim of the 2nd respondent as per its order dated 10-9-1975 at ExhibA-A. The 2nd respondent once again filed a similar application in form No. 7 under Section 48A (1) of the Act for the same relief viz., for being registered as an occupant in respeel of the same land on 15-6-1976. The petitioners resisted the claim of the 2nd respondent on the ground that a second claim for registration of occupancy right is not maintainable in view of Exhibit-A, the earlier order passed by the land tribunal, rejecting his claim for grant of occupancy right in respect of the same land and also further contended that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a second claim and hold a fresh enquiry to decide the, question of granting occupancy right or not. The tribunal, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners, allowed the claim and passed the order Exhibit-B granting occupancy right in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of the land in question. It is the correctness and validity of this order that is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Shri W.K. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that if once a claim for registration of occupancy right preferred by a claimant in respe;ct of any land is rejected, a second claim by him for registration of occupancy right in respejct of the, same land is not maintainable and the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a second claim and if the tribunal grants qccupancy right on the second application, the same will be without jurisdiction and wholly invalid. He therefore argued that the order impugned is liable to be set aside In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Siddappa Appanna Biradar Patil v. The Land Tribunal Gokak and others W.P. No. 2867 of 1977 - decided on 2-1-1978).