The court upheld the Land Tribunal's decision regarding land occupancy rights, affirming the claims made were limited to 10 acres and rejecting broader claims.

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner in WP.No.78715/2013 has filed the petition seeking issuance of the writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 12.04.2012, passed by respondent No.10- the Land Tribunal, Raibag, produced as per Annexure-C, and to direct the Land Tribunal to grant occupancy right to the petitioner in respect of the entire 36 acres 12 guntas of land in R.S.No.146, situated at Alagavadi village of Raibag Taluk.

2. The petitioner in WP.No.65192/2012 has filed the petition seeking issuance of the writ in the nature of the Certiorari to quash the order dated 12.04.2012, passed by the respondent No.1- the Land Tribunal, Raibag, produced as per Annexure-F, granting occupancy right in respect of 10 acres of land in R.S.No.146, situated at Alagavadi village of Raibag Taluk by rejecting Form No.7 submitted by the claimants produced as per Annexure-D.

3. Heard Sri.D.B.Karigar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.M.M.Khannur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5(B-C) and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.10. Perused the materials on record.

4. From the contention taken by the parties and from the material on record, it go to show that, WP.No.78715/2013 was filed by the grantee of 10 acres of land by the Land Tribunal. Even though the claim was made to grant 36 acres 12 guntas of land in RS.No.146 of Alagawadi village, the Land Tribunal assigned the reasons in the impugned order to grant only 10 acres as the claimants restricted their claim to grant only 10 acres of land.

5. Learned counsel representing claimants before the Land Tribunal filed the written argument claiming only 10 acres of land, and also contended that the remaining extent of land is in the possession of others, as they have occupied the same illegally. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.78715/2013 contends that, such encroachment by the respondents in the connected matter was made in 2012, and the police complaint was filed in that regard as per Annexure-F dated 8.11.2012, it does not bear any acknowledgment for having received in the police station. Under such circumstances, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.

6. It is to be noticed that during the course of cross examining the witness, who is the General Power of Attorney holder of the owner, a specific suggestion was made that except 10 acres, the remaining extent was in illegal possession of others. The written argument submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants before the Land Tribunal suggested that only 10 acres of land is in cultivation of the claimants. Under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

7. Insofar as WP.No.65192/2012 is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have purchased the entire land measuring 36 acres 12 guntas in RS.No.146 under the registered sale deeds. The Land Tribunal has recorded finding that claimants were tenant in respect of 10 acres of land, and they are entitled for confirmation of the order. When such a categorical finding is recorded by the Land Tribunal, I do not find any reason to interference with the impugned order on the basis of so called registered sale deeds executed by the owners in favour of the purchasers. Hence, I am of the opinion that both the petitions are devoid of merits, and the same are liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.