HAMEED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is applicant in Form No.7A before the competent authority under the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, namely 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner. In the said application, the petitioner has sought for occupancy right in respect of 57 cents of land in Sy.No.51/1 of Kolnadu village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that, his grand father - Hasakunhi Beary was tenant under one Shankar Alva s/o Maindappa Alva Tiruvache for more than 30 years prior to the date of filing of Form No.7A. According to him, though his grand father had tenancy right in respect of aforesaid land, he did not choose to file Form No.7. As such, when an opportunity was given by the Legislators to those of the persons, who did not avail the opportunity to seek tenancy right in respect of land in their occupation and cultivation, he choose to claim the same by filing Form No.7A. In that behalf, in the proceedings which was conducted before the 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner, after recording evidence of the parties the competent authority by order dated 20.5.2003 considered his claim for grant of occupancy right to 57 cents of land in Sy.No.51/1 of Kolnadu village.

(3.) The landlord of land in question, respondent before the competent authority being aggrieved by the order of competent authority in conferring occupancy right in respect of land in question in favour of petitioner herein, preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.922/2003, wherein the appeal filed by landlord was allowed, consequently, the order of grant of occupancy right in favour of petitioner in proceedings No.TSC.36/1999- 00 vide order dated 20.5.2003 was set aside by judgment dated 13.1.2012. Being aggrieved by the said divergent finding rendered by the Karnataka Appellant Tribunal, the applicant in Form No.7A before the competent authority has come up in this writ petition contending that the judgment passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in setting aside the grant of occupancy right in his favour, is erroneous for more than one reason.