A mortgagee in possession is not deemed a tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, thus invalidating claims of occupancy rights based on tenant status.

ORDER :

(E.S. INDIRESH, J.)

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 07^th October, 2016 (Annexure-P) and Rectification order dated 14^th October, 2016 (Annexure-Q) passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Doddaballapura Taluk in Case No.LRF:319/1974-75.

2. The facts in nutshell as averred in the petition are that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.14/1 of Dhargapura Village, Doddaballapura Taluk measuring to an extent of 2 acres and in this regard RTC extracts are produced at Annexures A1 to A10. The petitioner and his father Chandram Bhatta had mortgaged the scheduled land in favour of H. Muniyappa Reddy as per registered Mortgage deed dated 03^rd August, 1965 (Annexure-B). The father of the petitioner Chandram Bhatta died during the year- 1980. It is also stated in the petition that the mortgagee-H. Muniyappa Reddy and his brothers partitioned their joint family properties as per registered partition deed dated 06^th March, 1970 (Annexure-C) and the scheduled land was included in the partition Deed. The Schedule land was allotted to the share of H. Anjanappa Reddy, who is the brother of said H. Muniyappa Reddy. Thereafter, the said H. Anjanappa Reddy and his children got partitioned their shares in the joint family as per registered partition deed dated 12^th June, 1972 and the schedule land was allotted in favour of A. Narayanareddy and same is reflected in the RTC extracts.

3. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioner herein had instituted Original Suit No.52 of 2000 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Doddaballapura seeking decree of redemption of mortgage and the said suit came to be decreed on 21^st July, 2008 (Annexure-F1). Thereafter, respondent No.3-A. Narayana Reddy filed Regular Appeal No.52 of 2008 before the First Appellate Court and the said appeal came to be allowed as per judgment and decree dated 07^th November, 2009 (Annexure-G1) and the matter was remanded to Trial Court for fresh disposal. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has preferred Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.10 of 2010 before this Court, and this Court, by order dated 26^th November, 2013 (Annexure-H), allowed the appeal and directed the First Appellate Court to adjudicate the Regular Appeal No.52 of 2008 on merits. After the remand made by this Court, the respondent No.3-A. Narayana Reddy died and steps were not taken and as such, the appeal was dismissed as abated on 18^th August, 2014 (Annexure-J). Hence, the judgment and decree dated 21^st July, 2008 (Annexure-F1) passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.52 of 2000 has attained finality. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed F.D.P. No.11 of 2008, seeking redemption of the mortgage and accordingly, sought for appointment of Court Commissioner to execute a redemption deed. In the meanwhile the deceased respondent No.3 filed application seeking occupancy right in respect of the subject land in Case No.LRF:319/1974-75 and the respondent No.2- Land Tribunal has erroneously granted occupancy right in favour of the respondent No.3 as per order dated 27^th January, 1976 and same was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.23112 of 2000. This Court, by order dated 03^rd September, 2007 (Annexure-L), quashed the order dated 27^th January, 1976 passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. After remand, two daughters of the deceased respondent No.3 came on record and prosecuted the case before the Land Tribunal.

4. It is also stated that in the petition that, one of the daughters of the deceased respondent No.3 i.e., respondent No.3(b) represented her father as power