The main legal point established in the judgment is that tenants dispossessed pursuant to a decree, which was subsequently reversed, have an absolute right to reclaim possession, and their registration as occupants under the Land Reforms Act, 1961, could not be denied.

JUDGMENT

Neranahalli Srinivasan Sanjay Gowda, J. - This is a petition by the landlord challenging the conferment of occupancy rights in favour of the tenants namely Mahadevappa Hanumappa Mane (6 acres 20 guntas), Dyamappa Hanumappa Mane (6 acres 13 guntas) and Boodappa Fakirappa Kanaja (7 acres 5 guntas) all situate in Block No. 68 of Revadihala village of Hubli Taluk.

The following facts are not in dispute:

2. Block No. 68 (old No. 90 and 91) measuring 12 acres 33 guntas and 7 acres 5 guntas totally measuring 19 acres 38 guntas situate in Revadihal Village of Hubli Taluk was paraganavatan inam land.

3. On 04.01.1936, Govindrao Desai (father of the petitioner) executed a registered Lease Deed in favour of Rango Gurunath Kerakoppa.

4. In the year 1958-59, Rango Gurunath Kerakoppa, leased the property in favour of Hanamappa Mane, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and subsequently, by a registered Deed dated 17.12.1960, he transferred his rights in favour of Venkatesh Patil.

5. However, in the year 1962, Krishnaji, petitioner herein instituted a suit in L.C. No. 152/1962 before the Munsiff Court, Hubli, for possession. The said suit was filed against Venkatesh Patil and the children of Hanumappa Mane i.e., respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and also Boodhappa Fakkirappa Kanjanavar i.e., respondent No. 5. In the said suit, Krishnaji categorically admitted that his father Govindrao Desai had executed a permanent Lease Deed dated 04.01.1936 in favour of Rango Gurunath Kerakoppa and despite the fact that the lease was limited to the lifetime of Rango Gurunath Kerakoppa, he had sub-leased the property illegally in favour of respondents 3 to 5 in contravention of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 and was therefore, entitled to possession.

6. The Court of Munsiff at Hubli decreed the suit on 21.06.1969. In the said suit, the learned Munsiff recorded that the suit property had been the subject matter of a permanent lease dated 04.01.1936 in favour of Rango Gurunath Kerakoppa and Rango Gurunath Kerakoppa had transferred his rights illegally in favour of the 1st defendant. As against the said decree, an appeal was preferred in R.A. No. 110/1969.

7. However, during the pendency of the appeal, execution proceedings were initiated in Ex. P. No. 391/1969 and Krishnaji (petitioner herein), the decree holder was stated to have been put in possession, thereby dispossessing respondents 3 to 5.

8. It is not in dispute that on 22.07.1974, the appeal filed against the decree passed in L.C. No. 152/1962 i.e., R.A. No. 110/1969 was allowed and the decree for possession was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned Munsiff. The said order of remand was challenged in M.S.A. No. 129/1974 and the decree passed in L.C. No. 152/1962 and R.A. No. 110/1969 was set aside and the matter was referred to the Land Tribunal to decide the question relating to tenancy since the Land Reforms Act, 1961 had been amended by then.

9. It is not in dispute that on 19.08.1974, respondents 3 to 5 had filed applications in Form No. 7 seeking for grant of occupancy rights and the Land Tribunal by order dated 30.10.1981 granted them occupancy rights. It is also not in dispute that the said order of the Land Tribunal was challenged in W.P. No. 31992/1981 and this Court by an order dated 11.10.1984 remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.

10. On remand, the Land Tribunal once again proceeded to grant occupancy rights in favour of the tenants by its order dated 12.12.2003. This order was once again challenged in W.P. No. 440/2004 and this Court by an order dated 19.07.2007 set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter once again for reconsideration.

11. On remand, for the third time, the Land Tribunal by the order dated 22.08.2012 has conferred occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and it is this order that is impugned in this writ petition.

12. It is the case of Sri S.B. Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioners that the L