The petition, albeit listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, is finally heard and is disposed of by this order.

2. Facts briefly stated are:

The father of the first petitioner and the father of the second and third petitioners filed two separate applications in Form 7, under Section 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act'), for being registered as occupants of one-half share out of land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy. No. 266/4A+4B of Karajage Village. The Land Tribunal after an enquiry over the said two applications, by order dated 26-2-1976 conferred occupancy rights as claimed, which when called in question by the landowner in W.P. No. 531 of 1982, was quashed and the proceeding remitted for fresh consideration.

3. On remand, the third respondent though served with notice of the proceeding before the Land Tribunal, remained absent and unrepresented. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the first and second petitioners, jointly instituted O.S. No. 15 of 2001 arraigning the landowner, the third respondent herein as a party defendant, which when referred to the Lok Adalat, the parties reported a settlement by filing a compromise petition recording the terms, the basis of the award dated 15-6-2001, Annexure-D.

4. The petitioners having produced the award Annexure-D in the enquiry proceeding the Land Tribunal by order dated 26-8-2004, Annexure-E conferred occupancy rights over one-half of the land jointly in favour of the petitioners and rejected the claim over the balance half. Hence this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the terms of the award Annexure-D which run thus:

5. A plain reading of the terms disclose that the subject-matter of the compromise between the parties relates to the claim of the petitioners as lawful tenants of the lands in question, more specifically the claim over one-half extent of land in Sy. No. 266/4A+4B as particularised in the application filed by the father of the first petitioner, set out in paragraph 2 of the terms, and the claim of the father of the second and third petitioners, over the balance one-half extent, as mentioned in paragraph of the terms. In paragraph 3 the landowner admits that the petitioners are in possession of the lands, that he would cause no interference with the possession or stake a claim to the same, and that his name shown in the RTC phani of the relevant year, as the cultivator of the land is an incorrect entry (pokka). In paragraph 5, it is stated that the petitioners may make a report to the revenue authorities to have their names substituted in the records. In paragraph 5, the landowner reiterates that he has no rights over the lands muchless possession.

6. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Land Tribunal fell in error in refusing to consider the award Annexure-D, on the premise that it is not binding in view of Section 44 of the Act. In opposition, the learned Counsel for the Caveator-third respondent, owner, contends that the Section 44 of the Act precludes the Tribunal from taking into consideration any judgment, decree or order of the competent Civil Court in a proceeding for conferring occupancy rights under the Act.

7. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act provides for transfer and vesting in the State, all lands held by or in possession of tenants including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued, while sub-section (2) provides for the consequences of vesting, notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any Court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in any contract or grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force.

8. The award Annexure-D does not partake the character of a decree or order of eviction or a certificate for resumption falling within Section 44 of t