( 1 ) THE petitioners have called in question the ordered passed by the land Tribunal, Belthangady, in No. LRY/15/74-75 DATED 14. 1. 2004 (annexure-A) whereby the land tribunal rejected the application field by the father of the petitioners seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of the land in question.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that their father late Babu Poojari had taken the schedule lands on lease from the mother of the respondents No. 8 and 9 for cultivation and on the basis of the said lease, he was cultivating the lands as on 1. 3. 1974. After his death, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is contended that respondents No. 2 to 7 were the original owners of the schedule lands. They had mortgaged the lands in favor Smt. Anthamma the mother of respondents No. 8and9. Smt. nthamma had given the schedule lands on lease in favour of Babu Poojari, the father of the petitioners. Babu Poojari field application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. The land tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Babu poojari by the order dated 15. 6. 1976. The father of the respondent No. 2 to7 field an appeal before the land reforms appellate authority challenging the said order and the applicate authority had also rejected their appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, a revision was field in LRRPB NO 957/1987 before this court. Thus court by the order dated 22. 3. 2001 allowed the revision and remitted the matter to there land tribunal for the fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is contended that during the pendency of the proceedings before the land tribunal, the 3 respondent had made a statement admitting the creation of lease by anthamma in favour of BABU POOJARI. It is further contended that various documents such as the levy register, no due certificate for the relevant year and tax paid receipts produced by the petitioners was not considered by the Tribunal.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS No. 2 to 7 have field their objections. It is contended that the writ petition was field with a malafide intention to knock off the schedule property. It is further contended that the property belonged to one Venkamma D/o. Devamma Hengasu and her children venkamma is the mother-in-law of respondent No. 2and mother of respondents No. 3 to 7. the said venkamma had barrowed loan on the basis of a promissory note and anthamma the grandmother of the petitioners and mother of respondent No. 8 and 9 field a civil suit in O. S. NO. 105/1967 for recovery of the decretal amount, Venkamma and her children executed a registers usufructuary mortgage on 13. 5. 1968 for a period of 11years in favour of Anthamma for Rs. 2000/ -. Babu Poojari is the son-in-law of anthamma and husband of respondent No. 8 and that they are governed by Aliyasanthana law. It is further contended that babu poojari was assisting Anthamma and respondents No. 8 to 9 in the cultivation of lands. His cultivation was as a member of the family of anathamma and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant either between babu poojari and Anathamma or babu poojari with respondents No. 2 to 7. It is further contended that Anathamma could not have created valid tenancy in favour of her son-in-law babu poojari.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel or the parties.

( 5 ) SRI. K. M. Natraj, learned counsel for petitioner submits that this court in LRRP No. 957/1989 DD 22. 3. 2001 while setting aside the order passed by the matter afresh in accordance with law. He draws my attention to the evidence of Smt. Yarijia, the 3 respondent who was examined before the tribunal. It is submitted that the 3 respondent had admitted the tendency of babu poojari in her evidence. He has taken me through various documents produced by the petitioners before the tribunal justifying their claim of tenancy. It is argued that the finding of the land tribunal is contrary to the material placed on record. He further submits that there is no prohibition for anat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document