The court upheld that without evidence of cultivation, claims over punja land occupancy rights are untenable.

JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner challenging the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.74/2003.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, lands bearing Sy. No.23/8C measuring 60 cents and Sy. No.23/1C7 measuring 57 cents situated at Budnar, Badagubetta village, Udupi Taluk, was the absolute property of late Sri B.Sarvothama Bhat who is the husband of deceased respondent no.2 - Smt. Varamahalakshmi. The mother of the appellant - Smt. Roshanabi had filed Form no.7 claiming occupancy rights of the aforesaid lands. The Land Tribunal, initially by its order dated 04.12.1975 had allowed the application and the said order was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.3754/1976 which was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal rejected Form no.7 by order dated 25.10.2002 which was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.74/2003. The said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal once again for fresh consideration. The order passed in W.P.No.74/2003 was challenged in W.A.No.3032/2009 and the said writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 05.04.2013 and as against the said order, Civil Appeal No.9275/2014 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.09.2014 allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge of this Court to consider the writ petition afresh. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned has thereafter dismissed the writ petition and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Land Tribunal had not granted proper opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the landlord's witnesses and also had not granted opportunity to lead evidence on behalf of the appellant. He submits that though the remand was restricted by this Court only in so far as it relates to Sy. No.23/8, the Land Tribunal once again considered the matter afresh in respect of both the survey numbers which was not permissible. He submits that the order passed by the Land Tribunal is cryptic and the evidence available on record, more so the RTC extracts have not been properly appreciated by the Land Tribunal, and therefore, the matter requires to be remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) MUNIYELLAPPA VS B.M.KRISHNAMURTHY & OTHERS - ILR 1977 KAR 700 (DB);

(ii) LAXMI SHEDTHI & ANOTHER VS UDIPI TALUK LAND TRIBUNAL, UDIPI, SOUTH KANARA & OTHERS - ILR 1978 KAR 472 (DB); and

(iii) MONTHI MENEZES (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VS DEVAKI AMMA (DEAD) BY LR. - (2019)6 SCC 136 .

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that the lands in question are punja lands and the appellant has not produced any material to show that the punja lands have been cultivated, and therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of ANTHONY GOMES VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS (W.A.No.3656/2019 disposed of on 21.10.2022), the Land Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim. He further submits that the lease deed dated 15.04.1959 is only in respect of the house existing in Sy. No.23/8 measuring 15 cents and the said lease is for a period of 11 months which is renewable thereafter. He submits that when the claiman