KAREPPA Vs. GURUNATH FAKIRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and one Smt. Laxmawwa were the rival applicants before the Land Tribunal seeking conferment of occupancy rights in sy. No. 6 of Kanavi Honnapur in Dharwad District. The claim of the petitioner was for half of the land while that of the rival claimant was for the full extent of 9 acres 22 guntas. The Land Tribunal conducted enquiry and passed an order on 20. 10. 1981 granting occupancy rights to an extent of 4 acres 31 guntas jointly to both the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is stated that parties have examined witnesses and produced documents before the appellate Authority. On the basis of the material available, the appellate Authority passed the order dated 27. 8. 1988 setting aside the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner and granting the same in favour of, respondents 1 to 3 to the entire extent. The legality and validity of the said order is questioned in this Revision petition.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3, I have perused the order under challenge. At paragraph 12 of the impugned order, the Appellate Authority placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in DHAREPPA vs state has held that Land Tribunal ought to have choosen one of the rival claimants for conferment of occupancy right reserving liberty to the other claimant to establish his right in a Civil Court. This approach of the Appellate Authority is erroneous. It is well settled that if there are more than one claimant seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of the same land, the Land Tribunal should club all the applications together, conduct joint enquiry and dispose of alt the application by a common order. The observation of the Appellate Authority that one applicant should have been chosen and the other applicant should have been driven to Civil court is contrary to law. There cannot be two or more litigation or proceedings in respect of same property merely because different persons claim right over the same. The decision on which reliance was placed by the Appellate Authority has no application to the case on hand because the question to be determined in the instant case is with regard to the tenancy of petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the same land. It is not a case involving dispute over title. The Appellate Authority totally ignored the fact that a tenant has to claim the tenancy rights only before the Land Tribunal under section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and not before the civil Court. On this score itself the order under challenge is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE order of the Land Tribunal reveals that the 2nd respondent has admitted in his evidence before the Tribunal that respondents 1 to 3 were cultivating only half portion of the land. On the fact of such admission, the grant of occupancy rights in their favour to the half extent was justified. Even it was also admitted that the remaining half portion was being cultivated by the petitioner. Accordingly the same was granted by the Land Tribunal. But the Appellate Authority set aside the said grant of occupancy rights and ordered for granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 3 to the full extent merely on the basis of the entries in the pahani extracts. The appellate Authority was not justified in discarding the claim put forth by the petitioner and the evidence adduced by him in support of his case coupled with the admission of 2nd respondent before the Land tribunal that the remaining half portion of the land was being cultivated by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the order of the appellate Authority is liable to be set aside.