THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24TH FEBRUARY, 2015 PASSED IN NO.LRY-39-97-TRI-3918/1977-78 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-LAND TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2-LAND TRIBUNAL TO RECONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.7 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 24th February, 2015 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal in Case No.LRY-39-97-TRI-3918/1977-78; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in Form No.7 (Annexure-B).

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner claims to be a tenant under the landlord Laxmi Narayana Hebbar. It is stated that the petitioner is in possession of land bearing Survey No.164/5I measuring 51 cents and Survey No.157/32 measuring 37 cents at Perdoor Village, Udupi Taluk and District. It is stated that the petitioner has filed Form No.7 (Annexure-B) on 22.08.1974, seeking occupancy right in respect of the aforementioned land. The respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, by order dated 25th September, 1981 (Annexure-C) granted occupancy right in respect of the land bearing Survey No.157/32 measuring to an extent of 37 guntas situate at Pardoor Village, however, the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal has not considered the claim of the petitioner in respect of the land bearing Survey No.164/5I. Both the landlord and tenant have challenged the aforementioned order passed by the Land Tribunal before this Court in Writ Petition No.2152 of 1997 c/w WP No.25169 of 1994. This Court, by order dated 07th June, 2000 (Annexure-D) set-aside the order passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After the remand made by this Court, the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal has recorded the evidence of the parties and by order, dated 24th February, 2015 (Annexure-A) rejected the application made by the petitioner seeking grant of occupancy rights. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri. Prasanna V.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. B.J. Eswarappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri. Krishnamoorthy D., learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 9.

4. Sri. Prasanna V.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was in cultivation of the land in question as on the relevant period i.e., on 01st March, 1974 and the said cultivation was admitted by the respondent landlord in the evidence at Annexure-J. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner constructed tiled roof house in the schedule property and therefore, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the material on record in a right perspective. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 9 invited the attention of the Court to evidence of the petitioner at Annexure-H and contended that the petitioner admits that he is in cultivation of land in question during the year-1984 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered as tenant under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate produced the original records and sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal.

7. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, petitioner herein claims to be a tenant has filed Form No.7, seeking declaration for confirmation of occupancy right in respect of the subject land. The respondent 3 to 9 herein are the owner/landlords o