PEDDA NARASIMHAIAH Vs. HAYATH SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in L. R. R. P. No. 5606/88 is the owner (hereinafter referred to as such) of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 131 and 132 of julapalya in Bagepalli Taluk. The petitioners in L. R. R. P. No. 998/89 claimed tenancy rights (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') in those lands by filing application in Form 7 before the Land Tribunal. The land Tribunal after conducting enquiry by its order dated 19. 8. 1987 rejected the applicant holding that he was not the tenant of the lands. Aggrieved by the same the tenant filed appeal before the Land Reform Authority, Chickballapur. The Appellate Authority by the order dated 23. 8. 1988 rejected the appeal. However it has held that the lands were tenanted lands as on 1. 3. 1974 and they used to continue in possession of the Government. Having held so, it has been ordered to dispose of the lands under Section 77 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act. The owner has filed the first Revision petition being aggrieved by the finding that the lands were tenanted and also by the direction issued for the disposal of the lands. The tenant has filed the second Revision Petition being aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal.

(2.) SINCE these two Revision Petitions arise out of the same order and the facts and the parties are, both these Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the orders of the Land Tribunal and that of the Appellate authority. The Appellate Authority rightly held that the Land Tribunal had authority to decide only the applications seeking occupancy rights and it has no authority to consider the tenancy rights of persons who have not filed the application. The order of the Appellate authority reveals that in Form 7 filed by the tenant, the survey numbers had not been mentioned but it was mentioned only as "jangamolla Jenu land". It is held that on 17. 2. 1977 the tenant filed an application to reject the Form 7 filed on 16. 1. 75 as he would file a separate application in respect of the lands cultivated by him. Accordingly, the land tribunal rejected the Form 7 filed by the tenant by an order dated 17. 2. 1977 and allowed the tenant to file Form 7. From the order of the Appellate Authority it is clear that the tenant has not filed such application thereafter. Inspite of that, the Land tribunal considered his case and has rejected his application in its order dated 19. 8. 1987 eventhough such application was not in existence for the consideration of the land Tribunal. Therefore, the rejection of the appeal of the tenant by the Appellate Authority was perfectly justified and to that extent the order of the Appellate authority is justified. His L. R. R. P No. 998/89 filed by the tenant is liable to be dismissed.