The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed after land vesting under state law does not confer valid title, emphasizing the priority of tenant rights as established in tenancy legislation.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

These Intra Court appeals are arising out of W.P No.4922/2018 c/w W.P No.52829/2017 filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions as under:

"ORDER

Writ Petition No.52829/2017 and W.P No.4922/2018 are accordingly dismissed, subject to the modification as stated above in respect of 04 acres 08 guntas of land in Sy.No.50 of Basavanaganguru Village.”

2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows:

The father of respondents No.3 and 4 in W.A No.622/2022 namely Late Huchappa filed declaration claiming occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.50 measuring 11 acres 15 guntas of Basavanaganguru Village against Late M.D. Hayath Sab i.e. the father of the appellants in W.A No.731/2022, from whom the father of the appellant No.1 in W.A No.622/2022 purchased the land through a registered sale deed dated 04.12.1974. The Land Tribunal conducted proceedings and through an order dated 31.10.1981 conferred occupancy rights for an extent of 07 acres 07 guntas in favour of Late Huchappa. The said confirmation was questioned in WP No.3111/82 by Late S.S Kadambar i.e. the father of appellant No.1 in W.A No.622/2022. The learned Single Judge of this Court through order dated 07.10.1985 quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the claim afresh in accordance with law, in the light of certain observations made in the order. The Tribunal, through order dated 16.01.1989, once again conferred occupancy rights for an extent of 07 acres 07 guntas in favour of Late Huchappa. The said order was once again questioned by Late S.S Kadambar before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and later, the same was converted into a writ petition in W.P.No.43293/1993, and the learned Single Judge of this Court through order dated 06.02.2003 once again quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal. However, the Land Tribunal through an order dated 30.10.2017 re-conferred the occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 in W.A No.622/2022, i.e., the legal heirs of Late Huchappa for an extent of 07 acres 07 guntas and ordered to enter the name of the government in the pahani for remaining extent of 04 acres 08 guntas.

3. The legal heirs of Late S.S Kadambar questioned the said order dated 30.10.2017 before this Court in WP No.52829/2017. Meanwhile, the legal heirs of Late M.D Hayath Sab also preferred W.P.No.4922/2018 against the order of the Land Tribunal. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 as stated supra. The said order is challenged by the legal heirs of Late S.S Kadambar in W.A No.622/2022 and the legal heirs of Late M.D Hayath Sab in Writ Appeal No.731/2022.

4. We have heard the learned counsel, Sri. P.N Harish for the appellants and Sri. Uday Holla Learned Senior Counsel as instructed by the contesting respondents No.3 and 4 in W.A No.622/2022 and the learned counsel Sri. Prakash M.H for the appellants and Sri. P.N Harish and Sri. Uday Holla senior counsel for the contesting respondents in W.A No. 731/2022 and AGA for the Government-respondents No.1 and 2 in both the appeals and also perused the original documents and files placed before us by the Learned AGA.

5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A No.622/2022 is that the learned Single Judge erred in not adequately considering the case of the appellants. He contende