SUBHAKAR Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL KARKALA TALUK KARKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed assailing the common order dated 29-7-1998 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the tenants/appellants and allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-Harideesh Rumar.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the lands bearing Sy. No. 162/1 measuring 2 acres 11 cents and Sy. No. 176/2 measuring 8 cents situated in Gandhinagar, Marapady Village, Moodabedri, karkala Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District are shown as Punja lands in the records of rights. According to the appellants, they are Chalgeni Tenants. That the late Sesu Poojary the father of the appellants filed an application under Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The respondent-Harideesh Kumar claimed the land as owner on the basis of a gift deed from his grandfather. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the appellant's father by an order dated 25-4-1981. The said order was challenged in W. P. No. 10910 of 1984 before this Court and this Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. After remand, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 18-12-1996 on a majority decision rejected the claim of the appellants in respect of 1. 81 acres of land and granted 0. 30 acres on "humanitarian Grounds". The appellants as well as the respondent-Harideesh Kumar filed writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Land tribunal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-Harideesh Kumar by a common order. Against that these two appeals are filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants Sri G. S. Vishveswara, Senior Counsel, contended that merely because the land is described as a Punja land it cannot be held not suitable for agriculture. The said lands are dry lands. Once it is a dry land it is a cultivable land or capable of cultivation. Therefore, as per Section 2 (18) the land is an agricultural land. Accordingly, the Act applies to the land. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge both erred in holding that the tenants are not entitled for grant of occupancy certificate.