The determination of occupancy rights requires evidence of a landlord-tenant relationship based on agrarian relations, which was not established in this case.

CAV ORDER

In these writ petitions, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 16.11.2022 in Case No. LRF 1201 of 1974-75 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal in respect of land in question (Annexure-A).

2. Relevant facts in W.P.No.1156 of 2023 are that, land bearing Sy.No.91 (new Sy.No. 91/2) measuring 06 acres, 20 guntas; Sy.No.161/9, measuring 06 guntas; Sy.No.161/10 measuring 05 guntas and Sy.No.159 measuring 04 acres 07 guntas situate at Kodihalli Village, Madure Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk has been acquired by the predecessors of the petitioners-Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, son of Pillappa as per the registered Sale Deeds during the year 1950. It is further stated that, brother of the said Munishamappa-Sanjeevaiah, made an application in the Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights in respect of subject land under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short the 'Act') by contending that the said Sanjeevaiah is a tenant under his brother- Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal by order dated 17.08.1976 in LRF No.1201 of 1974-75 granted occupancy rights in favour of the applicant-Sanjeevaiah, in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the same, Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah has filed W.P.No.10613 of 1976 before this court and this court vide order dated 25.03.1983 set aside the order of Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand made by this court, the Land Tribunal recorded the deposition of said Sanjeevaiah and by order dated 21.10.1986, granted occupancy rights in favour of said Sanjeevaiah. Being aggrieved by the same, father of respondent No.5, who is original purchaser-Puttaiah claims to be the purchaser of the land in Sy.No.159 measuring 04 acres, 16 guntas, approached the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.ALRA 782 of 1987. On account of the amendment to the said Karnataka Land Reforms Act , 1961, the CP No.3230 of 1991 was filed before this Court and same was converted into W.P.No.2113 of 1997. This court after considering the material on record vide order 15.06.2005 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal to pass fresh orders, after providing an opportunity to all the parties concerned as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal issued notice to the legal representatives of Munishamppa @ Muniswamaiah, and legal representatives of Puttaiah, (Respondent No.5) and one Kempanna, son of original applicant -Sanjeevaiah, (respondent No.4). It is further averred in the writ petition that, legal representative of Sanjeevaiah has not produced any material evidence to substantiate as tenant under Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah and the petitioners are in possession of land in question. The Land Tribunal, after considering material on record by order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-A), allowed the Form No.7, filed in respect of the land in question in favour of Sanjeevaiah and his legal representatives. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.

3. In W.P.No.25020 of 2022, it is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner claims to be purchaser of the portion of the land in question from one Munipillappa son of Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, and his family members as per registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.2014 (Annexure- D), and the Rectification Deed dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure-E). The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by Land Tribunal on similar grounds urged in W.P.No.1156 of 2022.

4. I have heard Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Sri. K. N. Phanindra, lea