The determination of occupancy rights must align with the definitions given in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, particularly regarding agricultural tenants and laborers.

ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Land Tribunal, Siddapura, Uttara Kannada District (Annexure-C to the writ petition) on the ground that the same is contrary to Section 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for brevity)

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties to the petition are referred to as per their ranking before the Land Tribunal.

3. Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the land bearing Survey No.621 measuring 16 guntas situate at Kondli village, Siddapura Taluk, as the said land has been purchased by the ancestors of the petitioner from the respondent No.1. It is stated that the respondent No.1 was a tenant claiming to be agricultural labourer. The respondent No.1 made an application under Section 38 of the Act, to register him as owner of the dwelling house situate therein and the land connected to the house. The said application was allowed by the Land Tribunal declaring him as owner of the entire 15 guntas of land in survey No.621 of Kondli village and being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi, and the Appellate Authority, after considering the material on record, held that the respondent No.1 (tenant) is entitled to be registered as the owner in respect of 8 guntas in survey No.621 of Kondli village.

4. The said order of the Appellate Authority was challenged before this Court in LRRP No.6021/1988 and this Court by order dated 23.08.2003, remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Radhu Shedthi Vs. Gopalakrishna Kedlaya & Others reported in 1990 (2) KLJ 271. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal by impugned order produced at Annexure-C confirmed occupancy rights in favour of the respondent No.1 and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

5. I have heard Sri.P.V.Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Sangram S Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. Vinayak Kulkarni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.6.

6. Sri.P.V.Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, despite the order passed by this Court in LRRP No.6021/1988, the Land Tribunal has not considered the factual aspects on record inter alia the declaration of law made by this Court and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

7. Per contra, Sri.Sangram S Kulkanri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.6 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal.

8. I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal. However, taking into consideration the law declared by this Court in Radhu Shedthi (supra), the Land Tribunal has not properly appreciated the law governing the confirmation of the occupation rights in favour of the respondent No.1. This Court in Radhu Shedthi case (supra) at paragraph 6 held as follows:

“6. A reading of these two provisions with Section 38 of the Act, abundantly makes it clear that the person who is an agricultural tenant and who has been granted occupancy rights cannot claim to be an agricultural labourer as defined under Section 2(2) of the Act. Main thrust of that provision is that the agricultural labourer is one whose principal means of livelihood is out of manual labour. Both the authorities have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was an agricultural tenant and who has been gr