Sri. Y. Halappa and Sri. Y. Kotrabasappa vs The State of Karnataka and Others

N. Kumar, J.—These appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has declined to entertain the writ petitions on the ground that the writ petitioners/appellants have no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, granting occupancy rights in favour of 4th respondent. The subject matter of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal was the land bearing Sy. No. 61/B measuring 7 acres 79 cents situated at Ittigudi Bevanahalli Village, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District. The grandfather of the 5th respondent by name Sri. Maganahalli Basappa admittedly is the owner of this land. The 4th respondent''s father late Shetyala Basavarajappa filed Form No. 7 u/s 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act on 18.06.1976 for grant of occupancy rights. After enquiry, his claim came to be rejected by an order dated 08.02.1989. Aggrieved by the said order he preferred an appeal before, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in R.A. No. 5/1990. After hearing, the appeal also came to be dismissed on 04.05.1990. Aggrieved by the said order, the 4th respondent preferred a Revision Petition before this Court in LRRP No. 45/2000. After hearing, this Court allowed the Revision Petition by an order dated 12.04.2006 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. After enquiry, the Land Reforms Tribunal by an order dated 28.03.2012 granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No 4 as by that time his father was dead.

In the meanwhile, the appellants herein claiming to be the tenants of the aforesaid property under a lease deed dated 05.04.1973 preferred an application in Form No. 7-A on 29.04.1999 for grant of the aforesaid land measuring 4 acres in favour of 1st appellant and 3 acres 79 cents in favour of 2nd appellant. The said application is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, the authority who is competent to entertain the application u/s 77-A. When they came to know about the grant of occupancy rights in respect of the very same land in favour of the 4th respondent, they preferred a writ petition challenging the grant of occupancy rights on the ground that there is no material on record, on the basis of which the Tribunal could have granted the occupancy rights. At any rate their application u/s 77A is pending before the Assistant Commissioner and that order would affect their interest. However, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the application filed in Form No. 7A has to be rejected as the application is not filed in time and therefore, the question of considering the said application would not arise. Further, he was of the view, as the appellants herein were not rival applicants and party to the proceedings before the Tribunal they have no locus-standi to file the writ petition to quash the order at Annexure ''H''. The petition was also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as one of the LR has not been impleaded as the respondent in the writ petition, in whose favour also occupancy rights has been granted. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned order contends, the material before the Land Reforms Tribunal do not disclose that the 4th respondent''s father was cultivating the land as tenant at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is without evidence, as such it is liable to be set aside. Further, he contended when their application for grant of land is pending consideration before the Assistant Commissioner the impugned order would come in their way. In the proceedings filed under the Land Reforms Act by the landlord for surrender of the land in excess of the ceiling limit, the findings is recorded that the appellants are in possession of the land in question. Under these circumstances, they are the aggrieved persons and they have right to challenge the order of the Tribunal.

We do not see any substance in any of these contentions.

Firstly, in the revenue records the name of the appellants are not shown as tenants at the relevant point of time. If they were tenants their landlord would have excluded the said land while seeking the relief under the Land Reforms Act in so far as ceiling limit is concerned. They have not moved the little finger to claim occupancy rights when the tenanted land stood vested with the Government as on 01.03.1974. On the contrary, the 4th respondent''s father at the earliest point of time i.e. on 18.06.1976 filed Form No. 7 and they are agitating the matter for the last more than 35 years. The appellants did not choose to take necessary steps to implead themselves and claim their right. The material on record shows there is a dispute regarding tenancy. Once there is a dispute regarding tenancy. Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is not attracted. Therefore, merely because an application is filed u/s 77A in Form No. 7 before the Assistant Commissioner that would not give a right to the appellants to challenge the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, when the owner of the land has chosen to accept the order under whom the appellants are claiming tenancy. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellants have no locus-standi to file the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal is well founded.

No merits. Dismissed.