( 1 ) THE petitioners are owners. They have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned Order at Annexure-K dated 3-2-2003 passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of 2nd respondent in respect of 7-20 acres in Sy. No. 132/c and 3. 00 acres in Sy. No. 129/c of Adavimallanakere village.

( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioners that proper enquiry was not conducted and sufficient opportunity was not given to them, is wholly untenable and liable to be rejected. At an earlier point of time the order dated 13-7-1977 rejecting the Form-7 application was quashed by this Court in W. P. No. 5690/94 and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal conducted enquiry. From the impugned order it is seen that one Kotra Gowda and another Channaveera Swamy have adduced evidence on behalf of the deceased petitioner. Documents such as the sale deed in his favour, pahani extracts and order passed by the Civil Court have been produced. The three witnesses deposed in favour of the 2nd respondent/tenant have been cross-examined by the counsel for the owners. Therefore, it cannot be said that enquiry was not properly conducted or sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitio-ners. Hence, the first contention fails.

( 3 ) THE second contention is that the lands are not tenanted. The same is rightly negatived by the Land Tribunal. The two witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner have categorically stated that the 2nd respondent was cultivating the land prior to 1971 and from 1972 he has not cultivated the land. It is significant to note that the lands had been purchased by the petitioner in the year 1972. After purchase, he filed suit in O. S. No. 139/75 and obtained decree. On the basis of the said decree, he obtained possession of the lands from the 2nd respondent on 29-6-1983 by executing the decree in E. P. No. 69/79. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition the petitioners themselves have stated that the suit was filed against the 2nd respondent for declaration and possession. That implies that the 2nd respondent was in possession of the lands until he was dispossessed on 29-6-1983 by executing the decree. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the lands were not tenanted, is factually not correct.

( 4 ) THE Land Tribunal also perused the entries in the Pahanis and found that the name of the 2nd respondent was entered from the years 1969-70 to 1980. Thus, the claim of tenancy was supported by the statements of witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner, the entries in the Pahanis and the dispossession of 2nd respondent from the lands by execution of the decree in the year 1983. Therefore, the impugned order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of the lands in question is legal, valid and justified. There is no ground for interfering with the impugned order.

( 5 ) THE impugned order is sought to be quashed on the ground that respondents 1 to 3 before the Land Tribunal were dead and without bringing their legal representatives on record the order is passed and hence the same is bad in law. The impugned order cannot be quashed on this ground as respondents 1 to 3 before the Land Tribunal had no right, title and interest in the lands in question as lands had been purchased by the petitioner in the year 1972 itself and his legal representatives have effectively defended the case by adducing evidence and producing documents before the Tribunal Virtually the respondents 1 to 3 before the Land Tribunal are formal parties as they sold their interest in favour of deceased petitioner. Not bringing their legal representatives on record is not fatal to the case. Hence, the contention urged in this regard deserves rejection and it is rejected. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document