( 1 ) ON a reference made by Venkatesh, J. this writ petition is posted before us for disposal.

( 2 ) ON 21-8-1974, the petitioner filed an application under S. 48a (1) of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 196! (hereinafter referred to as 'the LR. Act') in form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Sindgi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal', praying fur conferment of occupancy rights in the land bearing S. No. 512, measuring 9 acres and 15 guntas, situated in Devanagaon village, sindgi Taluk, Bijapur District. In his application, the petitioner asserted that he was cultivating the land from 1964-65 as a tenant of respondent No. 2. As required by Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, the Tahsildar, on verification of the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the entries in the Record of Rights, stated that the petittoner was cultivating the land from 1964-65 and was therefore entitled for grant of occupancy rights over the land. On the overleaf of the application, the Tahsildar has appended a note as under :

( 3 ) THE Tribunal, by its order dated 22-4-1976, rejected the application of the petitioner principally on the ground that in view of the agreement to sell, the leasehold or tenancy rights stood extinguished or merged and therefore he was not entitled for conferment of occupancy rights. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the above order of the Tribunal (Ext. C ).

( 4 ) APART from alluding to the above facts, the petitioner has asserted that he entered possession of the land under a lease deed dated 24-3-1964 and that even after the expiry of the period of lease specified in that deed, he also continued to be in possession of the same as a tenant of respondent No. 2. He has averred that on 6-6-1966 respondent No. 2 under a written agreement to sell of that date, agreed to sell the land for a sum of Rs. 10,200 and has received the amounts specified therein and has not executed a sale deed in his favour, but, has executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3. He has referred to the suit filed by him in O. S. No. 9 of 1968 on the file of the Civil Judge for specific performance of the agreement to sell and for an injunction. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite service of notice, have not entered appearance and have not denied the allegations made by the petitioner. But respondent No. 3 has resisted the claim of the petitioner. In his statement of objections, respondent No. 3 has averred that the petitioner has not been cultivating the land as a tenant of respondent No. 2 either under the lease deed dated 24-3-1964 or thereafter. He has pleaded that the petitioner is in possession of the land under the agreement to sell (Ext. R 2) and has therefore supported the view taken by the Tribunal.

( 5 ) SHRI I. S. Antin, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the view taken by the Tribunal that the leasehold rights or the tenancy rights of the petitioner over the land, stood extinguished or merged on the execution of the agreement to sell and therefore he was not entitled for conferment of occupancy rights is illegal.

( 6 ) SHRI V. T. Raya Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, sought to support the order of the Tribunal. He strongly relied on the ruling of the Madras high Court in Annamalai Goundan v. Venkatasami Naidu, AIR 1959 Mad. 354.

( 7 ) BEFORE examining the legal contention, it is useful to notice the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal in the case. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner was in possession and had been cultivating the land from 1964-65 onwards and also on the, material date viz. , 1-3-1974. The Tribunal has also accepted the case of the petitioner that he had entered the land under the lease deed dated 24-3-1964 executed by respondent No. 2 who was the owner of the land. According to the Tribunal, on the execution of the agreement to sell dated 6-6

Click Here to Read the rest of this document