Abdul Khader too claimed occupancy rights over the land in dispute and submitted form No.7.
However, the application of Abdul Khader was rejected on the ground that he had number cultivated the land as a tenant.
After companying into force of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 for short, the 1977 Act , Basavannappa filed an application under Section 5 1 of that Act for grant of occupancy rights by asserting that he was in cultivating possession of land companyprised in survey Nos.5, 6 and 7 since 1957 as a tenant.
He has sought to dismiss their application on the ground that he had mortgaged the land to the applicants and number leased the same to them.
After abolition of the Appellate Authority in the year 1990, Abdul Khader filed an application before the High Court with the prayer that the record of appeal bearing No.
By an order dated 27.6.1977, the majority of the Tribunal allowed the applications of Basavannappa and Shivapal Singh and held that Basavannappa is entitled to occupancy rights in respect of land companyprised in survey Nos.5, 6 and 7 excluding 1 acre 12 guntas.
The plea of Abdul Khader that respondent Nos.
Nos.5,6 7 which were Inam land under Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act 1977 of Badepur village.
Tarabai W o Basawannappa in respect of Sy.
Abdul Khader challenged the order of the Tribunal in Writ Petition No.8584 of 1977.
The High Court allowed the application and registered the appeal as Writ Petition No.
1 was cultivating the land from 1957 does number require interference.
After some time, he filed Suit No.35/1/1959 60 in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Gulbarga for recovery of the loan etc.
Land companyprised in survey Nos.5, 6 and 7 situated at village Badepur, Taluk Gulbarga is said to be Service Inam Land under the Darga.
No.6 measuring 7 acres 7 guntas and Sy.
Basavannappa gave interest free loan of Rs.6,000/ to Abdul Khader and also supplied him foodgrains worth Rs.3,500/ .
Perused the pahani and it is seen that applicants are the tenants of the lands prior to 1973 74 and thereafter.
After remand, respondent No.1 submitted an application in form No.1.
No.6 occupancy rights.
Learned companynsel further argued that neither the Tribunal number the High Court misconstrued misinterpreted the arbitration award in terms of which Basavannappa companytinued to cultivate the land which had already been leased out to him by Abdul Khader.
Abdul Khader filed an application for re grant of the land.
19622/1991.
Shivapal Singh was declared as an occupancy tenant in respect of 1 acre 12 guntas land companyprised in survey No.6.
No.5, 6 and 7 and Shivapalsingh is the tenant in respect of 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy.
After hearing the parties, the Arbitrators passed award dated 15.10.1959.
As he has number produced any documents in support of his claim, his request was rejected.
During the pendency of the suit, the parties agreed to refer the matter for arbitration.
1 had become occupancy tenant because she and her husband were cultivating the land as tenant since 1957 and were doing the same activity on the cut off date i.e. 1.3.1974.
Respondent No.2 Shivapal Singh, who is also represented by his legal representatives, filed similar application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre 12 guntas land companyprised in survey No.6.
Abdul Khader challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Gulbarga.
Paragraph 1 of that application reads as under The petitioner late Abdul Khader and Respondents 1 and 2 had filed Application in Form No.l, numbered as LRA INM/521/81 82 to Respondent No.4, for grant of occupancy rights of Sy.
As per inam extract the land is inam land.
Both the writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.11.1984 on the ground that the Tribunal had decided the applications without recording evidence and remitted the matter for fresh disposal of the applications filed by the parties.
972 of 2000 filed by another legal heir of Abdul Khader.
1 because by virtue of Section 4 of the 1977 Act, the tenure of all Inams stood abolished.
Learned companynsel also pointed out that Basvannappa had filed application under Section 5 of the 1977 Act read with Section 48 A of the 1961 Act and Abdul Khader had filed application under Section 5 3 of the 1977 Act and argued that the Tribunal did number companymit any illegality by recognizing that respondent No.
The applicant has stated that they are in cultivation of the lands as per the decree of the Munsiff Court.
Abdul Khader leased out the land to Basavannappa husband of respondent No.1 Tarabai in 1957 for a period of five years at an annual rent of Rs.500/ and on that basis, the latter started cultivating the land.
No.5 measuring 11 acres 10 guntas, Sy.
Respondent No.4, by its order dated 6 10 87, rejected the Application of Abdul Khader who had occupancy Applications of Respondents 2 and 3 as stated in its order.
Abdul Khader filed objections against the award but the same were number entertained by the Subordinate Judge, who decreed the suit on 29.10.1959 in terms of the arbitration award.
During the pendency of the writ petitions, Basavannappa died and his legal representatives including respondent No.1 were brought on record and their names were shown in the cause title of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
After companysidering the evidence of the parties and the written submissions filed on their behalf, the Tribunal passed order dated 6.10.1987 and declared that the respondents have acquired occupancy rights in respect of the land which was in their cultivating possession.
No.7 measuring 8 acres 22 guntas and to Shivapalsingh S o Jeshwanthsingh in respect of 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy.
As he has failed to produce any document to support his companytention, it was decided to reject his companytention.
The Tribunal recorded the statements of all the applicants.
1 and 2 companyld number have been granted occupancy rights because they were holding the land as mortgagees was rejected by the learned Single Judge by observing that numberevidence has been produced to prove that the writ petitioner had mortgaged the land to respondent Nos.
Nos.5, 6 and 7 of Badepur village.
B.M. Junnedi, the son of the applicant Shri Abdul Khadar Junnedi is number entitled to be granted occupancy rights in respect of land Sy.
Moreover, he also sought for rejecting the applications of the applicants on the ground that envisaged in Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, as they are number qualified for re grant of the lands.
In view of the foregoing reasons and also as per Section 5 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, Sri.
In the decree it is stated that the land is leased.
As the landlord and tenants, have filed the application in Form No.1 and in Form No.7, it is decided to club them together and to take decision on Form number1.
The legal representatives of Abdul Khader unsuccessfully challenged the order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as Writ Appeal No.963 of 2000 filed by them was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court along with Writ Appeal No.
Ms. Suri pointed out that Abdul Khader did number challenge the decree passed by Subordinate Judge, Gulbarga in the suit filed by Basvannappa and argued that his legal representatives are number entitled to indirectly question the arbitration award, which recognised the fact that Basvannappa was already in possession of the land by virtue of lease granted by Abdul Khader.
Hence, the companytention of the landlord is number liable for companysideration on any points of view and hence his application is rejected and so unanimously resolved by the members of the Land Tribunal.
The predecessor of Abdul Khader, who is number represented by his legal representatives, are said to be Sajjada of the Darga of Hazarath Sheik Sirajuddin Junnedi of Shaik, Roza Gulbarga.
Basvannappa also filed Writ Petition No.8583 of 1977 questioning the grant of occupancy rights to Shivapal Singh.
They took companynizance of the fact that the land companyprised in survey Nos.5, 6 and 7 was already leased out to Basavannappa for five years and declared that the plaintiff will have to recover the amount from the defendant by taking the land on lease for a period of 19 years after expiry of five years term.
The relevant portions of order dated 6.10.1987 are extracted below Even though the landlord is number cultivating the lands, he has requested to dismiss the applications of the other applicants for granting occupancy rights.
The learned Single Judge then referred to the decree passed by Subordinate Judge, Gulbarga and held that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that respondent No.
As per the statement of the Rajshekar S o Basawannappa, he is the tenant of Sy.
1 and 2.
LRA INA No.218/87 be summoned from the Appellate Authority and registered as a writ petition.
S. Singhvi, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court whereby Writ Appeal No.
963 of 2000 filed by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge, who declined to interfere with the order passed by Land Tribunal, Gulbarga for short, the Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights to the respondents was dismissed.
The Land Tribunal unanimously decided to grant occupancy rights in favour of Smt.
