SIDDAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Art 226(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India is directed against the order bearing No.K.L.R.F. 129177-78 dated 25-11-1977, passed by the Land Tribunal, Hunsur, produced as Ex-D By the said order, the Land Tribunal has granted the occupancy right in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of an area of 2 acres in the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 298, situated at Hussainpura Nala village, taluk Hunsur, district Mysore-

(2.) The first petitioner is the owner Of the land in question and the second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner.

(3.) The third respondent filed an application in form No. 7 before the 2nd respondent-Tribunal, under S. 48A of the Karnataka Land, Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for being registered as an occupant of the land in question. The first petitioner came to be impleaded in the said petition in pursuance of the order dated 18-11-1977 as stated in form No. 7, produced as Ex 'C.' The case of the third respondent, was that he had been in possession of the land in question as a tenant, for the last 25 years as stated in Form No. 7 Ex. 'C' and has been cultivating the same personally and as such, he was entitled to be registered p.3 an occupant of the land in question. The first petitioner opposed the said application and filed her objections as per Ex-F, inter alia contending that the land in question originally belonged to her father and the 3rd respondent was the tenant prior to 1969; that her father filed an application for resumption against the 3rd respondent and other tenants under S. 14 of the WP. 27/ 78. Act in the year 1967 before the Land Tribunal, Mysore, in L.T.P.No.604 67; that in the said proceeding the 3rd respondent filed an application for permission to surrender the land in question along with 1 acre arid 8 gun- tas of the same survey number under S. 25 of the Act as it stood then; that the then Tribunal, after benig satisfied that the proposed surrender was bona fide and that the extent of the holdings of the landlord did, not exceed the ceiling area, granted permission to the 3rd respondent to surrender and further permitted the, landlord to enter upon the land so surrendered and to cultivate the same personally. It was also further conten ded by the first petitioner that in pursuance of the said surrender, her brothers came into possession, of the land in question (as by then her father had expired and her brothers had come on record) along with the other portion in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal and continued to cultivate the same personally. Subsequently, there was a partition in the family in the year 1973 and in that partition, the land in question was given to, her share and, from that time onwards, she has been in, actual possession and has beep cultivating the same personally. It was also contended that the land in question having not been in the possession of the alleged tenant either on 1-3--1974 or immediately prior to that date, the same did not vest in the State Government and as such, an application in Form No. 7 was not maintainable. The first petitioner also contended that the application filed by the 3rd respondent was barred by time and the same was not accompanied by an application or an affidavit to explain the delay and as such, the said application was not maintainable.