The occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act were granted based on established tenancy, even after land ownership changes, emphasizing the primacy of RTC entries unless lawfully challenged.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.10.2012 passed in No.LRF.CR.3172/1974-75 (Annexure-A) by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, whereby the Land Tribunal granted 'occupancy right' to respondent No.1-D.V.Narayanreddy in respect of Sy.No.24/2 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas and in Sy. No.24/3 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas (totally measuring 6 acres 20 guntas) situated at Chikka Bellandur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk (for brevity "the subject lands").

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their father late V Ranganath-petitioner No.1 purchased the subject lands from one Rama Reddy vide registered Sale Deed dated 28.07.1971 and the mutation record was also changed in the name of V. Ranganath as khatedar and ever since they were in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. Respondent No.1, being fully aware about the purchase of the subject lands as an attesting witness to the said Sale Deed, he filed an application under Form 7 for grant of occupancy right under Section 45 of the KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT , 1961 (for brevity, "the Act"). The Land Tribunal passed an order dated 31.01.1981 in favour of respondent No.1 by registering and confirming the occupancy rights in respect of subject lands. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner No.1 preferred WP.No.28635/1991 before this Court and this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand of the matter, the Land Tribunal conducted fresh proceedings and rejected the claim of respondent No.1 vide its order dated 10.01.2003. Challenging the same, respondent No.1 filed WP.No.17898/2003 and this court vide its order dated 05.02.2009 quashed the said order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, the fresh proceedings were initiated and the Land Tribunal once again conferred occupancy right of subject lands in favour of respondent No.1- D.V.Narayan Reddy vide impugned order dated 09.10.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court in the present Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri P.N. Rajeswara a/w Sri Narayan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.M. Manjunath and H.M. Kishor Kumar learned counsel for respondent No.1 (A, B, D to F, H, I, J, and K), Sri Tharanath Shetty K learned counsel for respondent No.1 (C) (I to III), Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty learned counsel for respondent No.1(G), Sri Nikhil K.N learned counsel for respondent No.1 (F) and Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondent No.2.

4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the father of petitioners late V.Ranganath purchased the subject lands from one Rama Reddy vide registered Sale Deed dated 28.07.1971 and respondent No.1 was a attesting witness to the said Sale Deed, since then they were in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. Respondent No.1 has filed frivolous application seeking occupancy right though the subject lands were not being cultivated and when the casuarina trees have been grown on the subject lands, the question of cultivation does not arise at all and as such, the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy right in respect of subject lands to respondent No.1. Further it is contended that the petitioners' vendor Rama Reddy has stated in his evidence that he sold the land to the petitioners' father along with casuarina trees and respondent No.1 was not a tenant under him and the subject lands were never vested in the Government. It is also contended that the name of Rama Reddy was shown in Column No.12 of RTC as 'Own/swanta', as such, entering the name of respondent No.1 in column No.12(2) of RTCs no way creates any right to him to file an application for grant of occupancy right and at no point of time, he was paying wara/revenue to the petitioners or their vendor.

5. Further, it is contended that respondent No.1 has ma