Point of Law : Land Tribunal is bound by the statutory presumption as to entries made in record of rights and order of the Tribunal without any reference to such entries and having no discussion as to the oral evidence is not valid. [Para 25]

JUDGMENT :

This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order dated 15.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.48674/2011.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties, the Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 8 and also perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records which would be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, land bearing Sy. No.31/1 (New No.53) of Ramanahalli village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 5 acres (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute') was granted to one Sri Rajarathnam on 16.10.1946. Rajarathnam died on 01.09.1963 and he was survived by his seven children who inherited the land in dispute. After coming into force of the Act No.1 of 1974 with effect from 01.03.1974, the father of respondent nos.2 to 7 herein -late Sri Chandrappa had filed Form No.7 on 23.12.1974 under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') claiming occupancy rights of the land in dispute contending that he was the tenant in occupation and cultivation of the land in dispute for the last about 15 years.

4. In the Form No.7 filed by Chandrappa, he had shown the name of Rajarathnam as the landlord of the land in dispute. Before the Land Tribunal, the legal heirs of late Rajarathnam were brought on record and they had participated in the enquiry proceedings. The Land Tribunal vide its order dated 07.08.1979 had granted occupancy rights of the land in dispute in favour of Chandrappa. The legal heirs of Rajarathnam had filed W.P.No.33828/1996 challenging the said order dated 07.08.1979 passed by the Land Tribunal. This Court had allowed the said writ petition and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand, the Land Tribunal recorded further evidence of the parties and by order dated 29.01.2005 once again granted occupancy rights of the land in dispute in favour of the claimant-Chandrappa. The said order was challenged by the legal heirs of Rajarathnam in W.P.No.16625/2005 which was allowed and the matter was remitted by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2008.

5. Subsequent to the second remand, when the matter was pending before the Land Tribunal, the claimant-Chandrappa died and his legal heirs who are respondent nos.2 to 7 had come on record. The Land Tribunal, thereafter, vide order dated 08.12.2011 rejected the Form No.7 filed by the claimant and being aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.2 -Siddrangaswamy who is one of the legal heir of the claimant had filed W.P.No.48674/2011 before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned has allowed the writ petition and the order of the Land Tribunal was quashed and the claimant was conferred with the occupancy rights in respect of the land in dispute. Being aggrieved by the said order, the legal heirs of the landlord late Rajarathnam have preferred this intra court appeal.

6. Smt. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that Form No.7 was filed by the claimant as against a dead person, and therefore, the Land Tribunal could not have entertained the same and occupancy rights of the land in dispute cannot be granted in favour of the claimant. She submits that the land was granted to late Rajarathnam in the year 1946 considering his service in the military, and therefore, unless a notification is issued under Section 15(6) of the Act vesting the land with the State, the claim made for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in dispute cannot be considered by the Land Tribunal. She submits that the claimant has not produced any rent receipts for having paid the rent or wara nor has he deposited the same before the competent authority and she has invited the attention of this Court to Section 9 of the Act in support of this contention of hers. She has also contended that the land in dispute