The court upheld the denial of occupancy rights in certain land parcels, emphasizing that mere claims without substantiated evidence do not warrant rights under the Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT :

D K SINGH, J.

This intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1671/2017 filed by Late Narayanappa.

2. The appellants are the legal heirs /the daughters of Late Narayanappa. The writ petition was filed questioning the order dated 20.02.2004 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore in LRF No.5528/79-80. The Land Tribunal had granted the occupancy right in favour of Late Narayanappa in respect of lands in Survey Nos.30 and 31 measuring 5 acres 4 guntas and 3 acres 16 guntas, respectively, and grant of occupancy certificate in respect of Survey Nos.32 and 36 of B.M.Kaval Village had been denied.

3. Late Narayanappa had filed claim for occupancy certificates in respect of 4 survey numbers i.e. Survey Nos.30 measuring 5 acres 02 guntas, Survey No. 31 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas, Survey No.32 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas, Survey No.36 measuring 16 acres 34 guntas of B.M.Kaval Village in Form No.7. The Land Reform Tribunal did not grant occupancy right in favour of late Narayanappa in respect of land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.32 and land measuring 16 acres 34 guntas in Survey No.36. Challenging the said order of the Land Tribunal, the writ petition came to be filed by Late Narayanappa, who died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal heirs, the appellants herein were brought on record.

4. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order has held that N.Venkatesh Reddy, the son of late Narayanappa had filed his affidavit in evidence dated 02.06.2003 stating that his father had claimed occupancy rights in respect of Survey Nos.30, 31, 32 and 36. However, his father himself was actually cultivating the land in Survey No.30 measuring 5 acres 4 guntas and Survey No.31 measuring 3 acres 16 guntas. The remaining land was in possession of Sri S.N.Rajaram, the land owner. Late Narayanappa was the tenant only in respect of the land measuring 8 acres 20 guntas in Survey Nos.30 and 31. The learned Single Judge has held that the son of late Narayanappa had given up the claim in respect of land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.32 and 16 acres 34 guntas in Survey No.36. Therefore, the Land Tribunal was justified in non-granting any occupancy right in favour of the petitioner/Narayanappa in respect of the Land in Survey Nos.32 and 36 of B.M.Kaval Village and the writ petition came to be dismissed.

5. We have gone through the order of the Land Tribunal dated 20.02.2004.

6. The Land Tribunal had held that the lease hold rights were not established in respect of the claim of Narayanappa in Survey Nos.32 and 36 and they could establish that lease hold rights only in respect of Survey Nos.30 and 31, the occupancy certificate was directed to be issued in favour of the Narayanappa only for land measuring 8 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.30 (5 acres 04 guntas) and Survey No.31 (3 acres 16 guntas).

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal had only considered the affidavit of the landowner, wherein the landowner had admitted that Narayanappa was lessee in Survey Nos.30 and 31 and he was not lessee in respect of land in Survey Nos.32 and 36. On the basis of the aforesaid admission of the landlord, the occupancy certificate had been issued in favour of Narayanappa in respect of land measuring 5 acres 04 guntas in Survey No.30 and 3 acres 16 guntas in Survey No.31.

8. We have considered the record. it is not correct to say that the basis for passing the order by the Tribunal was the affidavit filed by Krishnappa. The Tribunal had considered the evidence led by the parties as well as the owners conceding the position that the lease hold rights were granted to the five appellants before the Tribunal including Narayanappa in respect of the land in Survey Nos.29, 30 and 31 and not in respect of Survey Nos.32 and 36. The Tribunal had also independently examined