This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9-2-2007 passed by the Land Tribunal in No. Benakanahalli:SR:84+82+89, conferring occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent on an application filed in Form 7.

2. The Land Tribunal was considering the application in the second round pursuant to a remand order dated 2-9-1999 passed in W.P. No. 20055 of 1993 connected with W.P. No. 29268 of 1992 by this Court.

3. On an earlier occasion the Land Tribunal had rejected the application filed by the person claiming as a tenant and it is that order dated 6-2-1991 which had been set aside by this Court and the matter had been remanded and it was on such remand the Tribunal had taken up the matter for further enquiry.

4. While many of the basic facts were not in dispute particularly, the tenant being in possession and cultivation of the land in question on the appointed day, it was also on record before the 'Tribunal that the tenant was in fact in possession of the lands even from the year 1954 and prior to that as a tenant, in that year the landlord had entered into an agreement with the tenant to sell the land and he had also received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as part of the sale consideration. It transpires further that for one reason or the other sale deed was not been executed but the tenant continued to be in possession and cultivation of the land. It is on such undisputed facts the Land Tribunal had resolved to confer occupancy rights in favour of the claimant under the impugned order.

5. The impugned order is challenged questioning the sale contending, inter alia, that the revenue records do not indicate the name of the applicant as a tenant on the appointed day; that the revenue records clearly indicate that it was in the cultivation of the owner and not as tenanted land in favour of the respondent 3.

6. It was because of this ground it was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the applicant being in possession and cultivation of the land having been conceded by the owner even in terms of the statement recorded by the Tribunal in the year 1987, the question was as to assuming that the applicant was not a tenant but a person who has continued to be in authorised possession and cultivation of the land before the appointed day and thereafter also and can be conferred with occupancy rights if not as a tenant as reflected in the revenue records but by calling in aid the deemed provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

7. While the applicant being a tenant prior to 1954 also is not much in dispute question was as to whether the agreement for sale of the agricultural lands could bring about an end to the relationship between the landlord and tenant and on this aspect, learned Counsel for the petitioners was requested to examine the matter further and make submissions.

8. While no authority has been brought to my notice on behalf of the petitioner indicating that the tenancy gets terminated on the landlord entering into an agreement for sale of the land, Sri Ramakant V. Shinde, learned Counsel who has entered Caveator for the 3rd respondent relying upon the decision of this Court in Venkatappa Ningappa v State of Karnataka and Others submits that it has been specifically held in this case that notwithstanding there being an agreement for sale of the tenanted land, the relationship does not cease and that continues and therefore conferring of occupancy rights by the Tribunal was justified and hence the impugned order does not call for in inference.

9. In terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, a person who is not a tenant is also deemed to be a tenant in case the person was in authorised possession and cultivation on the appointed day and thereafter also continues to be in possession and cultivation of the land. The present case is one in which the applicant was in fact a tenant earlier and in whose favour an agreement for sale of the agricultural land came to be executed. The decision