Vishna Reddy vs Land Tribunal, Haveri and Others

This petition has come up for orders on I.A.I.

I.A. I is filed under Order 23, Rule 3, CPC stating that the petitioner and respondent 2 have arrived at compromise on the terms mentioned in the I.A. I. The said compromise petition is signed by the petitioner and respondent 2 and their respective learned counsel. On the last occassion, I directed Sri Pradeep Rai, learned Government Pleader to take notice for respondents 1 and 3 and to make his submission on instructions.

The petitioner filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of R.S. No. 7/1 + 4 measuring 4 acres 30 guntas of Belavigi village in Haveri Taluka, Dharwar District. On earlier occassion, occupancy rights were granted in favour of the petitioner by the land tribunal. But the same came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 1513 of 1977. This Court set aside the order of the land tribunal and remanded the case back to the tribunal. After remand, the land tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 30-5-1984. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

I.A. I. is filed stating that respondent 2 the land lord has no objection to grant occupancy rights over the land in question to the petitioner. In order to satisfy as to whether the land is tenanted land, this Court asked the learned counsel for the parlies as to whether the petitioner''s name found in the record of rights for the period namely on 1-3-1974. The learned counsel state that petitioner''s name finds place in the record of rights from 1971 and onwards and that on earlier occassion, occupancy rights were granted in favour of the petitioner.

Sri Pradeep Rai, learned Government Pleader submitted that he has already given telegram to the respondents 1 and 3, but there is no response.

In view of the nature of the compromise and that occupancy rights had been granted to the tenant earlier, in my view, the interest of the State docs not suffer. Having considered all aspects, in my opinion I.A. I deserves to be allowed. The petitioner and respondent 2 are also present before the court, they admit the contents of I.A. I. In this view of the matter, I.A. I is allowed and writ petition is disposed of in terms of I.A. I.