SIDDALINGANAGOUDA R Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above l. r. r. ps. Are interconnected, inasmuch as both the petitioners in filing the revision petitions had challenged the common order dated 28-2-1990 in ra 712 of 1986 on the file of the district land reforms appellate authority, bellary. In passing the said Order, the appellate authority while rejecting the claims of the petitioners in both the revision petitions, had allowed the claims of the respondents 3 and 4 in both the revision petitions.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions - Sri v. t. rayareddy and Sri mahantesh hosmath appearing along with Sri h. g. maheshwaraswamy and the learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent 6, Sri r. b. guttal and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 (a) to 7 (h) Sri g. Basavanagouda in the first petition. The respondents 3 to 5 in the first petition having been served with the notices had remained absent before court. I have also perused the case records both of the appellate authority as well as that of the land tribunal.

(3.) THE petitioners and the respondents 6 and 7 in the first petition (they are respondents 3 and 4 in the second petition) had claimed occupancy right by filing form No. 7 before the land tribunal. Since the contending opposite parties in both the petitions are common, i feel it convenient to refer to them as they occur in the first petition. The petitioners in both the petitions are referred to as the 'petitioner in the first petition' and 'petitioner in the second petition'.