SHIVARAJ PATIL, J.

( 1 ) THE following questions are referred for consideration and determination of the Full Bench : (1) What is the scope of jurisdiction conferred upon the Land Tribunals under Section 112-B (b) of the Act in deciding the claim of occupancy right made under Section 48a of the Act ? (2) Is it not open to the Land Tribunals to decide all questions that arise while considering Form No. 7 filed for the purpose of granting or refusing the occupancy right claimed therein ? (3) When a jurisdiction is conferred upon the Land Tribunal to decide whether a person is a tenant or not, does it not take into its fold to decide all the controversies having a bearing upon the claim in order to decide the question whether a person is a tenant or not ? and (4) Which of the decisions of this Court in Mudukappa's case (1978 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 459 : (AIR 1978 Kant 136) and Guruvappa's case (ILR 1985 Karnataka 386) or the decisions in Appi Belchadthi's case (1982 (2) Karnataka Law Journal 565 and Yellappa's case, (R. F. A. No. 26 of 1975 Dt. 11-6-1975) lay down the law correctly ?

( 2 ) THE facts which are necessary for the purpose of determination of the questions referred are these : One Thungu Poojarthy held leasehold rights in the lands in question; she had two daughters and a son, namely, Thaniyaru Poojarthy, Thomu Poojarthy and Chandu Poojary; Aithu Poojary was the husband of Thaniyaru Poojarthy and son-in-law of Thungu Poojarthy; Aithu Poojary had a son by name Booda Poojary; on the coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974 (for short the Act) Aithu Poojary filed form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal at ADP claiming occupancy rights in all the 20 items of the lands in question stating that he had obtained on lease those lands in his individual capacity from one Narayanachari by executing a chalugeni lease in the year 1961-62; Chandu Poojary did not file Form No. 7, but Thomu Poojarthy filed Form No. 7 before the same land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights over all the lands in question. The Land Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, by the order dated 28-9-1987, granted occupancy rights in respect of 14 items of lands totally measuring 2 acres 99 cents in favour of Aithu Poojary and granted occupancy rights in respect of the remaining 6 items of lands measuring in all 1 acre 20 cents in favour of Thomu Poojarthy. During the pendency of the appeals before the Appellate Authority Aithu Poojary died. The son Booda Poojary came on record. The Appellate Authority, on appeal, modified the order of the Land Tribunal, by its order dated 18-1-1989, and granted occupancy rights of all the 20 items of lands in favour of Booda Poojary and Thomu Poojarthy jointly as members of Aliyasanthana family, leaving the question as to what would be share of the son-in-law in the lands in question for decision of Civil Court, in a Original Suit said to have been filed and pending adjudication in the Civil Court. The Appellate Authority concluded that the leasehold rights were held by Thaniyaru Poojarthy and Thomu Poojarthy as members of the 'aliyasanthana' and as such 'aliyasanthana family' was the tenant of the lands in question. Booda Poojary filed C. R. P. Nos. 1084/89 and 3438/89 aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority in this Court.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge referred the above said Civil Revision Petitions to a Division Bench, on the ground that there is a conflict between the two decisions rendered , by the two Division Benches of this Court reported in I. L. R. 1985 Karnataka 386 (Guruvappa v. Manjappu Hengsu) and 1982 (2) Karnataka Law Journal 565 (Appi Belchandthi v. Sheshi Belchadthi ). The Division Bench after consideration felt that two Division Benches of this Court have taken different views as to the scope of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Land Tribunal under the Act while considering the application filed in Form No. 7 and that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document