The petitioner states that Malakappa had two sons by name Gurulingappa and Bhimshya. Gurulingappa had three sons one of whom was Adiveppa and his wife Kamalavva. Bhimshya had three sons viz., Malekappa, Mahadevappa and Basavanthappa. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of Bhimshya and sister of Basavanthappa. The petition averments disclose that in a partition between Gurulingappa and Bhimshya, the land measuring 10 acres 38 guntas being a portion of Sy. No. 198A/4 of Sirakanahalli Village, Indi Taluk, fell to the share of Gurulingappa and the remaining portion in favour of Bhimshya. After the death of Gurulingappa, his son Adiveppa exercised rights over the said immovable property, and on his death, his widow Kamalavva, the 7th respondent, is said to have succeeded to the estate of the deceased.

2. It is the assertion of the petitioner that by the wardi (report) during the year 1991, the revenue authorities entered the name of Adiveppa's widow, 7th respondent as the owner of the property in question having succeeded to the same, evident from the mutation entry bearing ME No. 2055, dated 23-12-1991, Annexure-A. Thereafter, the 7th respondent is said to have given up her right over the said property in favour of Basavanthappa s/o Bhimshya, as recorded in ME No, 2056 mentioned in column (9) of the RTC phani, dated 26-1-1995, Annexure-B. Basavanthappa in turn is said to have given up his right over the said immovable property in favour of the petitioner herein, as recorded by the revenue authorities in ME No. 2225, dated 25-2-1995, Annexure-C. Thus, the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of the immovable property in question.

3. Respondents 3 to 6 filed a declaration dated 1-6-1987 in Form I under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Rules, 1979 (for short 'Rules'), for being registered as occupants of the lands in question. The Land Tribunal, in the first instance, rejected the declaration which when questioned in a writ proceeding was quashed and the proceeding remitted for fresh consideration. On remand, the 7th respondent appeared before the Land Tribunal and gave her statement that one Nagappa the father of respondents 3 to 6 was the cultivator of the land in question prior to and on the appointed date and that she had no objection for grant of occupancy rights in their favour. The Tribunal on the basis of the said statement of the 7th respondent passed the order Annexure-F, dated 22-2-2002 granting occupancy rights over the land in question in favour of respondents 3 to 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this petition.

4. The petition is opposed by respondents 3 to 6 by filing their statement of objections dated 17-9-2004 inter alia contending that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition as having no right, title or interest over the property in question. According to the respondents, the genealogical tree Annexure-R1 issued by the Village Accountant, discloses that the petitioner is not the sister of Basavanthappa. It is further contended that in the absence of a registered document transferring the right, title and interest in the immovable property in question, a mutation entry made by the revenue authorities cannot substitute a legal transfer of immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The RTC record for the years 1974 through 1983, Annexure-R2, discloses the name of the father of the respondents 3 to 6 as cultivator and deny that the Tahsildar deleted the said name on the basis of the endorsement Annexure-E.

5. Sri G.G. Chagashetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner advances the following contentions:

(a) The Tribunal fell in error in not noticing that the Form I, dated 1-6-1987 filed by respondents 3 to 6 for grant of occupancy rights under the Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, is not maintainable as it is filed beyond the period of limitation;

(b) that in view of the Mutation Entry No. 2056, dated 31-5-1991 by wh