Longstanding entries in revenue records establishing tenancy prevail against unsubstantiated claims of surrender; procedural requirements under tenancy laws must be strictly followed for valid occupancy rights.

ORDER :

1. Writ Petition No.65515/2012 is filed assailing the order dated 18.08.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Raibag marked at Annexure - A. In terms of the said order the petitioner's application seeking occupancy rights is rejected.

2. Writ Petition No.65628/2011 is filed by the petitioners assailing the very same order which is assailed in Writ Petition No.65515/2012. Writ Petition No.65628/2011 is filed by the Form No.VII applicant (Rival Claimants) whose application seeking grant of occupancy is rejected.

3. The property in question is Sy.No.149 measuring 22 acres 6 guntas in Alakanur Village, Raibag Taluk.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.65515/2012 would urge that Form No.7 applicant - the predecessor of the petitioners, was tenant in respect of eastern half of the aforementioned land and he was lawfully cultivating the property immediately before 01.03.1974 and landlord in the cross examination has admitted the tenancy of the petitioners’ predecessor-in-title. The petitioners have produced the receipts for having paid the rent. Ignoring all these documents, the Tribunal has rejected the application seeking occupancy right is the submission.

5. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.65515/2012 would also submit that earlier the Land Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioners’ predecessor-in-title i.e. Form No.7 applicant was in lawful cultivation of the property and based on that, occupancy was granted in respect of half portion of Sy.No.149 referred to above.

6. Another applicant, viz., the predecessor of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.65628/2011 had filed a petition challenging the grant of occupancy in respect of eastern half portion and the matter was remanded by setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal and thereafter, the Land Tribunal rejected the application filed by both petitioners ignoring vital documents in support of the claim of the applicant in Writ Petition No. 65515/2012.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 65628/2011 would submit that petitioner’s predecessor the original applicant was in possession of the property as a tenant and the tenancy was very much recorded in the property records since 1943-1944 and the name continued in the property records up to 1953-54. Thereafter, it appears there was a partition in the family of the landlords and they moved an application to mutate the names of the parties pursuant to the partition and in the process, without any notice to the original tenant, the names of the landlords have been entered in the property records both in columns No.9 and 12. However, it is his submission that the tenancy continued and the application is filed for grant of occupancy in respect of entire Sy.No.149 measuring 22 acres and 6 guntas.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.65628/2011 would also urge that the Tribunal could not have rejected the application on the premise that the petitioners’ names or the applicants’ names were not found in the property records after 1953-1954. It is his submission that unless the tenancy is surrendered in the manner known to law, the tenancy does not come to an end and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the Land Tribunal. Thus, he would urge that the Writ Petition No.65628/2011 is to be allowed and occupancy is to be granted in respect of the entire land.

9. Countering the submission of the learned counsel for the