1.

W.P.No.16238/2013 is filed by Rajashekar Ajri, son of

the mulgenidar 3 Lal Chandra Hegde.

2.

W.P.No.40382/2013 is filed by Jayavarmaraja Ballal,

son of Smt.Kinniyamma @ Gunvathiamma (mooli).

3.

In both the writ petitions, the order registering Sanjeev

Rao as the occupant under Section 45(1) of the Karnataka

Land Reforms Act, 1961 is called in question.

4.

The admitted facts are that the land bearing Sy.No.84/1

totally measuring 1 acre 48 cents was owned by Kinniyamma

and an extent of 34 cents of the said land was the subject

matter of a registered instrument dated 13.07.1964, by which

Lal Chandra Hegde, father of Rajashekar Ajri had purchased

the mulgeni rights from Seetamma.

5.

Sanjeev Rao had made an application seeking for

conferment of occupancy rights in Form No.7 on 25.07.1974.

He claimed that he had taken 30 cents of land in Sy.No.84/1

on lease from Kinniyamma and another 22 cents from

Seetamma and was personally cultivating the said lands.

6

6.

The Land Tribunal, by the impugned order, accepted

the plea of Sanjeev Rao and registered him as an occupant in

respect of 22 cents in Sy.No.84/1P1 which Sanjeev Rao

claimed under Seetamma and 30 cents in Sy.No.84/1P2

which he claimed under Kinniyamma.

7.

The mulgenidar i.e., Rajashekar Ajri contended that the

land in question was never leased to Sanjeev Rao and the

said land was essentially a house site and could not,

therefore, be considered as an agricultural land. He further

contended that since there was a Mulgeni Deed in favour of

Lal Chandra Hegde, the question of the original owner

Kinniyamma leasing any extent of land in question in favour

of Sanjeev Rao would never arise and therefore, the order of

the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained.

8.

It is an admitted fact that Lal Chandra Hegde had

instituted a suit in O.S.No.180/1975 against Sanjeev Rao in

respect of Sy.No.84/1 measuring 31 cents for possession.

The said suit was filed on 15.09.1975 with the assertion that

Sanjeev Rao was making certain agricultural improvements

on the plaint schedule property and had, by force, planted

7

coconut trees. It was stated that Sanjeev Rao had no right to

engage in agricultural activities by converting the house site

into an agricultural land and therefore, Lal Chandra Hegde

was entitled for possession of the same. The relevant plea in

the plaint, which is found in the records, reads as follows:

<VII.

That the plaintiff since about seven

years is residing in the above address and about

six miles away from the plaint 8A9 schedule

property. The plaintiff, after coming to know that

the defendants are making certain agricultural

improvements in plaint 8A9 schedule property,

came to Belthangady on 14-9-1975 and observed

that since about one week the defendants 1 to 3

had forcibly trespassed in a portion of plaint 8A9

schedule property and which is described in

schedule 8B9 herebelow and had already by force

started to plant some coconut plants and also put

a wall across a pathway. The defendants 1 to 3,

it appears, are using the kottige building in plaint

8A9 schedule without plaintiff9s knowledge or

consent.=

9.

A reading of the plaint averments leaves no room for

doubt that the allegation against Sanjeev Rao was that he

was carrying out agricultural activities in the land in question

8

by planting coconut trees. In fact, in the said suit, a

Commissioner

was

also

appointed

and

the

said

Commissioner, after a spot inspection, had submitted a report

stating that there were 22 coconut trees which had been

planted recently, aged about 3 years, 1 jackfruit tree, aged

about 13 years and 1 cashew nut tree, aged about 3 years.

The Commissioner also noticed that there was a old well in

the plot. The said report which has been produced by the

petitioner in W.P.No.16238/2013 as Annexure-B clearly

establishes that there was a coconut garden existing in the

land bearing Sy.No.84/1 which was to the extent of 31 cents

as described in the plaint. If in an extent of 31 cents, 22

coconut tree