The court emphasized that tenants must establish lawful possession to claim occupancy rights, and any purported surrender of tenancy must follow statutory procedures under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

Writ Petition No.63771/2012 is filed assailing the order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Land Tribunal, Chikkodi.

2. In terms of the said order, the application filed by father of respondent No.3 viz., Dattu Naik Mallade is allowed and occupancy is granted in respect of Sy.No.75/2 measuring 7 acres 8 guntas and Sy.No.76/2 measuring 7 acres 19 guntas in Yamagarni Village, Taluk Chikkodi.

3. The landlords have filed the present petition on the premise that the Tribunal could not have granted occupancy right in favour of Form No.7 to the applicant as immediately before 01.03.1974, the applicant was not lawfully cultivating the property as a tenant and was not eligible for grant of occupancy right.

2. Writ Petition No.63497/2012 is filed by legal representatives of deceased Shankar Hindurao Ghorpade. It is stated that Shankar Hindurao Ghorpade had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy right in respect of Survey No.76/2 of Yamagarni Village, Taluk Chikkodi. The applicant - Shankar Hindurao Ghorpade claimed that he is a tenant under Appusaheb Gurulingappa Honashetti of Nipani since 1950-1951.

3. Writ Petition No.83970/2013 is filed by the legal representatives of Kashibai alias Annapurna Vishwanath Jyothi, assailing the very same order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the land Tribunal granting occupancy right. The said Kashibai was respondent no.7 before the Land Tribunal. Kashibai also claimed to be the landlord in respect of both the properties.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner’s landlords in Writ Petition No.63771/2012 would urge that the evidence was led before the Land Tribunal and the tenant in the cross examination held on 17.10.1981 has made a statement that the petition lands were in possession of Satlinga Honashetti 12 years prior to the said date. Satlinga Honashetti is the father of petitioner No.4. It is his further submission that initially occupancy right was granted to the extent of 1/4 share to the applicant. Later, the order was called in question. This Court has set aside the said order and remanded the matter. After remand ¼ share was granted to the applicant. Said order was again called in question. Then after one more remand, the impugned order is passed granting occupancy in respect of entire properties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.63771/2012 would also urge that the Tribunal has ignored the vital admission which would establish that immediately before 01.03.1974, the applicant was not in possession of the property as a tenant and he was not lawfully cultivating the property as a tenant, as such he was not entitled for grant of occupancy right.

6. Learned counsel would further submit that assuming that at one point of time the applicant's father was a tenant in respect of aforementioned two properties, his father surrendered the said property to the landlord, as such, the relationship of landlord and tenant has come to an end and that being the position occupancy right could not have been granted.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 83970/2013 would also adopt the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in 63771/2012 and would urge to set aside the impugned orders. In addition, learned counsel for the legal representatives of Kashibai would also urge that Kashibhai died on 05.09.2002 and her legal representatives were not brought on record, and the Tribunal passed the impugned order against the dead person.

8. It is an admitted fact that Kashibai is the daughter of Appasaheb and petitioners 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 63771/2012 are the descendan