(This Writ Appeal Filed U/s. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.26801/2000 dated 13/06/2008)

The legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P.No.26801/2000 dt.13th June 2008 is questioned in this appeal.

2. This case has got a checkered career. In respect of 3 acres 3 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.43 of Kothagere Amanikere Village in Kunigal Taluk is the subject matter of the litigation which litigation was started between the parties in the year 1968 in O.S.No.390/68 on the file of Munsiff at Tumkur, which suit was instituted by the deceased Ganganna Gowda claiming to be a tenant of the land for a perpetual injunction restraining the landlord from interfering with his lawful possession and enjoyment, which suit came to be dismissed on 17.12.1969 holding that he is not a tenant of the land in question. Against which he filed an appeal before the Civil Judge, Tumkur in R.A. 16/1970 which appeal came to be dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court at Tumkur on 17.8.1973. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the deceased appellant filed a second appeal before this Court in RSA No.107/1974 which appeal came to be dismissed on 18.1.1974. After the conclusion of the proceedings before the Civil Court, the deceased Ganganna Gowda filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Kunigal claiming to be the tenant of the very same land under the respondent. The Tribunal considering the Judgment and decree in the first round of litigation granted occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. Against which the landlord had taken the matter in Writ Petition No.11989/1976 which Writ Petition came to be allowed and the matter was set aside and remanded to the Tribunal on 21.2.83. Again after remand, the Tribunal considering the evidence let in by the parties relying upon the Judgment and decree passed O.S.No.390/68 which was confirmed in R.A.No.16/1970 and for confirmed in R.S.A.No.107/1974, rejected the application filed by the appellant for grant of occupancy rights on 29.3.1984. Against which again the tenant filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6884/84 and which Writ Petition came to be allowed and the matter again remanded to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the 3rd round of litigation confirmed the earlier order and rejected the application filed in form No.7 by its order dt.7.3.1989. Against which the tenant filed a L.R.A. before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, and due to abolition of the appellate authority, the matter was referred to this Court in C.P.No.8814/1993 and Civil Petition came to be converted into Writ Petition in W.P.No.26801/2000. The Writ Petition came to be dismissed on merits by holding that the appellant herein was not a tenant of the land and concurring with the orders of the Tribunal, dismissed the Writ Petition on 13th June 2008. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order, the present appeal is filed by the unsuccessful appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following points in support of his arguments:

The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have committed an error in not considering the case of the appellant solely relying upon the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.390/68. Relying upon a Judgment of this Court in Bhagirathi Amma & Others V. Land Tribunal, Udupi and Others reported in 1979(1) KLJ 307 contends that even if a decree passed against the appellant in a Civil Court considering the scope and object of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, still the Tribunal had to consider whether the appellant was a tenant as on 1.3.1974 and it was imperative on the part of the Tribunal to grant a relief to the appellant. He alternatively contends since the revenue entries still continue in the name of the appellant even after 1.3.1974, the Tribunal should have considered the revenue entries and presumption attached thereto. Therefore, on these two grounds he requests th