( 1 ) THIS revision petition filed under Section 121-A of the Karnataka land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against the order dated 28th of April, 1989 passed by the Additional land Reforms Appellate Authority at Sirsi (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Authority") in Appeal No. DAAA. AP. 47 of 1988 confirming the order dated 31st of August, 1985 made by the Land Tribunal, sirsi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Case No. LRM. SR. 66- 63, registering Jatti Kuppa Naika, the deceased first respondent herein, as owner in respect of land measuring about three arid half cents in Survey no. 382 of Mashigadde Village, as provided under Section 38 of the Act.

( 2 ) THE facts, which are not in serious dispute and which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as hereunder: (a) The petitioner herein is the owner of the land in question. Late jatti Kuppa Naika was admittedly a Mulgeni Tenant (permanent tenant) in respect of the land, referred to above. The petitioner- landlord had instituted suit, Original Suit No. 235 of 1952 against the said Jatti Kuppa Naika seeking certain relief and ultimately, the dispute was settled recognising the said Jatti Kuppa Naika as mulgeni Tenant and permitting him to continue to be in possession of the said land on his paying a monthly rent of Rs. 2/-; (b) On coming into force of the Act, the said late Jatti Kuppa naika filed Form 7 claiming occupancy right in respect of the said land. The said application came to be rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that he was not an agricultural tenant in respect of the said land, Thereafter, in view of the substitution of Section 38 made as per Act No. 1 of 1979 with effect from 1-1-1979, the said late Jatti Kuppa Naika filed Form 2-A claiming that he should be registered as the owner in respect of the land, referred to above. It was his case that he was an agricultural labourer residing in the house located in the land in question; (c) In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner examined himself in support of his case. The said Jatti kuppa Naika also examined himself and examined one Rama mastya Naika in support of his case; (d) The Tribunal, on consideration of the materials available on record, passed order dated 31st August, 1985 registering Jatti kuppa Naika as the owner in respect of the land in question; (e) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, and consequent upon the formation of the appellate Authority, the said writ petition came to be transferred to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, on consideration of the materials on record, passed order dated 28th of April, 1989, which is under revision, confirming the order passed by the Tribunal.

( 3 ) ,during the pendency of this petition, since Jatti Kuppa Naika has expired, his legal representatives were brought on record.

( 4 ) SRI R. G. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the correctness of the impugned order, made three submissions. Firstly, he submitted that since it was admitted by Jatti Kuppa Naika that he was running a Tea Shop in the portion of the house occupied by him, which is located on the land in question, the Tribunal as well as the appellate Authority has seriously erred in law in registering the said jatti Kuppa Naika as the owner in respect of the land in question. In other words, it is his submission that since late Jatti Kuppa Naika was not an agricultural labourer, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to register him as the owner in respect of the land in question. Secondly, he submitted that since it is admitted by late Jatti Kuppa Naika that he has converted the land in question for non- agricultural purposes, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to register him as owner in respect of the land in question. According to the learned Counsel, even if it is held that Jatti kuppa Naika was an agric

Click Here to Read the rest of this document