GIRIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners are the children of one venkatappa. In this petition, they have called in question the correctness of the order dated 6th january, 1989 passed by the land tribunal, madhugiri, rejecting their claim for grant of occupancy right in respect of land measuring 32 guntas in sy. No. 11/1 of lakshmipura village, madhugiri taluk, tumkur district.

(2.) the undisputed facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be set out as hereunder: the father of the petitioners aforesaid venkatappa had filed form 7 claiming occupancy right in respect of the land measuring 16 guntas in sy. No. 10/2, land measuring 5 acres and 31 guntas in sy. No. 1 of lakshmipura village respectively and land measuring 6 acres and 31 guntas in sy. No. 35, situated at appanhalli village, dodderi hobli. The tribunal after conducting necessary enquiry as prescribed under law conferred occupancy right in favour of the said venkatappa in respect of the said lands by its order dated 3rd november, 1976. The said order is found in the records. On the same day, the application in form 7 filed by one giriyappa s/o annegowda, claiming occupancy right in respect of land measuring 34 guntas in sy. No. 11/1 of lakshmipura village came to be rejected by the tribunal. The order passed by the tribunal conferring occupancy right in favour of the said venkatappa in respect of the lands referred to above and also the order passed rejecting the claim of giriyappa have become final. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner again made an application in form 7 on 21st february, 1977 claiming occupancy right in respect of the land measuring 34 guntas in sy. No. 11/1 of lakshmipura village which is the subject-matter of dispute in this petition. The claim of the 1st petitioner was rejected by the tribunal on the ground that the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners had sold the land referred to above to the deceased-3rd respondent is not supported by any documentary evidence and therefore the petitioners have failed to establish that they are the tenants in respect of the land in question; and secondly, on the ground that the entry in the record of rights and pahani shows that they are the owners in occupation as per column 12 of the record of rights and pahani.

(3.) Sri yoganarasimha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while challenging the order passed by the tribunal seriously submitted that the finding recorded by the tribunal that there is no document to show that the land in question came to be sold by the father of the petitioners to the 3rd respondent is contrary to the evidence on record. in this connection, he drew my attention to the registered sale deed dated 12th july, 1956 found in the file which shows that the father of the petitioners had sold the land in question by means of a registered sale deed to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, he submits that the conclusion reached by the tribunal that there is no document is totally incorrect. He further submitted that the entry in the record of rights and pahani shows the name of the 1st petitioner as the person in possession of the lands in question as a tenant and as such the tribunal has erred in law in passing the impugned order.