JUDGMENT (Mrs. Manjula Chellur, J.)

The appellant herein has claimed tenancy rights in respect of R.S. No. 1384/3 known as 'Hallikeri Dari Gudi Rola' as a tenant. It is not in dispute that Mr. Husensab, father of the present appellant initially filed Form 7 on 14-8-1974 in respect of Sy. Nos. 1075 and 1077. Again on 21-12-1976, he filed Form 7 for the second time in respect of the land in dispute i.e., R.S. No. 1384/3. On 26-12-1977, occupancy rights were granted by the Land Tribunal, Navalgund in respect of this land. The same was questioned in Writ Petition No. 2307 of 1978. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to consider the reasons if any given for filing delayed Form 7 i.e., the second application. On 19-6-1981, the Tribunal rejected the application holding that he was not a tenant of the said land. Again Writ Petition No. 17298 of 1981 came to be filed by the tenant and the writ petition was allowed quashing the orders dated 19-6-1981. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal.

2. On 12-12-1984, deceased Husensab and the legal representatives in question entered into compromise admitting the tenancy of the land in question. On 29-12-1991 occupancy rights were granted to the appellants as per majority opinion of the Land Tribunal. Respondents 3 to 12 raised objection with regard to filing of Form 7 for the second time. On 2-8-2006, a memo also came to be filed by the respondents along with the copies of two applications in Form 7, dated 14-8-1974 and 21-12-1976.

3. The learned Single Judge on 14-9-2006 dismissed the application only on the ground of maintainability. The said order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge before us.

4. According to the appellant, the rent receipts produced by him which are not in dispute along with the evidence of witnesses in support of his case ought to have compelled the learned Single Judge to opine in his favour. Even the compromise entered into between the parties was not considered by the learned Single Judge. The law relied upon by respondents 3 to 12 was not good law any more and the learned Single Judge was wrong in relying on the said judgment. When the landlords have waived their right to raise• the controversy of filing second application in Form 7, for the first time after 29 years, the same ought not to have been entertained by the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

(1) Giriyappa and Others v State of Karnataka and Others;

(2) M/s. Unique Butyle Tube Industries Private Limited v Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and Others;

(3) Parameshwar Timmayya Hegde and Others v Venkataraman Manjappa Hegde (deceased) by L.Rs and Others;

(4) Vasantha Nanasaheb Pawar and Others v Piraji Pandu Patil (deceased) by L.Rs and Others;

(5) V Krishna Rao v Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mysore and Others.

6. So far as the first argument of the learned Counsel that after a lapse of 29 years, for the first time, the respondents ought not to have challenged the second application in Form 7 as barred, we are of the opinion such contention of the learned Counsel is not palatable for the simple reason that so far as legal issue or legal question, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

7. The only question for our consideration before this Court is whether the second application in Form 7 in respect of Sy. No. 1384/3, dated 21-12-1976 filed by Husensab is maintainable?

8. For better understanding of the matter, it would be necessary to reproduce the important provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 that are applicable to the facts of the present case:

"Rule 19. Form of application and notice.-(1) The application under sub-section (1) of Section 48-A shall be in Form 7. The application shall furnish particulars of all the lands held under each separate tenancy in one or more than one Taluk in respect of which the applicant claims to b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document