Occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act require a formal application, and family members cannot claim rights over land without such filing.

ORDER :

RAJESH RAI K., J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "KAT") in Appeal No.196/2014 at Annexure-'A'.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that, one Baby Hengsu is the propositus and she had three sons namely Mahabala Bhandary, Raju Bhandary and Vasu Bhandary. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the children of Mahabala Bhandary, who died on 31.07.1979. Respondent No.1 is the wife and respondents 2 and 3 are the children of Raju Bhandary. Vasu Bhandary was respondent No.4 and on his death, his legal heirs are on record as respondents 4(a) to 4 (e). Baby Hengsu was cultivating the lands measuring 32 cents in Sy.No.85/8, 4 cents in Sy.No.84/6 and 1 acre 62 cents in Sy.No.84/3, all situated at Shivalli Village, Udupi District (for brevity, "subject lands") along with her children as a sub-tenant under one Muddanna Shetty, who was a chalageni tenant under the landlord namely Kaliya Mardhana Krishna Devaru, Admar Mutt - respondent No.5. However, due to illiteracy, instead of claiming occupancy right in respect of subject lands, she claimed occupancy right in respect of some other properties though she was in possession and cultivation of subject lands.

3. Later, respondent No.4- Vasu Bhandary made a claim in respect of subject lands, the same was rejected by the Land Tribunal and the said order has been confirmed by the KAT as well as by this Court.

4. Subsequently, the wife and children of Raju Bhandary i.e., respondents 1 to 3 claimed occupancy right in respect of subject lands under Section 77A of the KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT , 1974 vide Form-7A dated 10.03.1999.

5. At the same time, Vasu Bhandary, whose claim was rejected earlier by the Land Tribunal, again filed Form-7A claiming occupancy right in respect of subject lands.

6. The Land Tribunal held an enquiry into the rival claims of legal heirs of Raju Bhandary and Vasu Bhandary and passed an order dated 01.03.2006 granting occupancy right to legal heirs of Raju Bhandary i.e., respondents 1 to 3 in respect of lands measuring 1 acre 62 cents in Sy.No.84/3 and to respondent No.4 - Vasu Bhandary in respect of lands measuring 32 cents in Sy.No.85/8 and an extent of 4 cents in Sy.No.84/6.

7. However, the landlord-respondent No.5 - Mutt filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Land Tribunal in Appeal No.754/2008 before the KAT, which was later withdrawn by respondent No.5. However, respondent No.5 challenged the dismissal order in WP.35506/2010 on the ground that the Manager of Mutt without knowledge to the Mutt has withdrawn the appeal before the KAT, which was allowed by this Court on 20.06.2012 by setting aside the order of the KAT. However, on remand, since respondent No.5 has failed to prosecute the appeal, the same was dismissed for default. Subsequently, respondents 1 to 3 under a compromise with respondent No.5 sold the subject land in Sy.No.84/3 to respondent No.6 vide Sale Deed dated 29.09.2013.

8. The petitioners once again challenged the order of the Land Tribunal dated 01.03.2006 in Appeal No.196/2014 before the KAT. The KAT dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 10.04.2017. Challenge to the same is the lis before this Court.

9. Heard Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for the petitioners - legal heirs of Mahabala Bhandary, Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 - legal heirs of Raju Bhandary, Sri Ravikumar G.H., learned counsel for respondents 4 (a