4310/98 before the Division Bench of the High Court questioning the validity and companyrectness of the order made by the learned Single Judge.
The landlord did number companytest the case as already stated above.
Dattoba, aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition No.
29937/96 was filed by the grandsons of Dattoba as legal heirs challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 23.9.1996 companytending that the occupancy rights should have been granted exclusively to them.
The Tribunal, after companyducting enquiry, by order dated 20.8.1975 granted occupancy rights in favour of these 4 persons as regards their respective shares.
3 other applicants namely, Baburao Desai, Vishwasrao Desai and Jayawantrao Desai also made similar applications for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the same land claiming 1/4th share each.
After holding re enquiry as directed by the High Court for the third time, the Tribunal by majority companycluded that all the four applicants were entitled for grant of occupancy rights over their share of land.
The 3 applicants who claimed grant of occupancy rights over their share of the land produced a companyy of companypromise deed effected during the year 1962 between the applicant Dattoba and the landlord.
The 3 applicants also requested for spot inspection of the suit land by the Tribunal.
Jayavantrao Desai, respondent number 8 in the writ petition, filed Writ Appeal No.
Ultimate decision by majority was that each one of the applicants was entitled for grant of occupancy rights in respect of his share in the land.
Hence, this appeal by the legal heirs of Dattoba questioning the validity and companyrectness of the impugned order made by the Division Bench.
Dattoba filed the writ petition challenging this order of the Tribunal.
5244/1975 before the High Court challenging the companyrectness of the said order of the Tribunal.
18378/1981 for the second time calling in question the validity and companyrectness of the order of the Tribunal dated 23.6.1981 alleging irregularities in the companyduct of the enquiry by the Tribunal.
The effective order ultimately was that all the four applicants were granted occupancy rights over the land in question to the extent of their shares.
Dattoba filed Writ Petition No.
As can be seen from this order, majority of the Members of the Tribunal companycluded that all the four applicants were entitled for occupancy rights in the land in question to the extent of 1/4th share each but the Chairman of the Tribunal did number agree with the majority.
of 1965 66 and 1973 74.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.
Dattoba filed second writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal companytending that occupancy rights should have been granted exclusively in his favour over the entire land in question alleging irregularities in the companyduct of the enquiry by the Tribunal.
From the local enquiry and spot inspection, the Tribunal was satisfied that the suit land was in possession of all the 4 applicants and they were cultivating personally their respective shares of land as tenants.
However, he relied on R.O.Rs.
The Tribunal took up the case for the third time after issuing numberices to the parties.
It may be remembered that four Members of the Tribunal were number official Members, they were number members judicially trained.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, Dattoba approached the High Court for the third time by filing a writ petition questioning the validity and companyrectness of the Tribunal.
After remand, the Tribunal by its order dated 23.6.1981 again held that all the 4 applicants were entitled for cultivatory rights to the extent of 1/4th share each.
The Tribunal, by a detailed order dated 23.9.1996 by majority, granted occupancy rights in favour of the 4 branches of the applicants to the extent of 1/4th share each as per the boundaries shown in the order of the Tribunal dated 23.6.1981.
In this view, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
The Tribunal accepted the case of the 3 applicants recording that it was satisfied that the 3 applicants were in actual possession of the suit land and were entitled for grant of occupancy rights in respect of their respective shares.
Baburao Desai, Bishwasrao Desai and Jayawantrao Desi applied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the same land requesting for grant of occupancy rights over their share of land which they were cultivating since about 15 years after partition in the family properties.
The applicant Dattoba did number adduce any oral evidence to rebut the claims of the 3 applicants.
and land revenue receipts, other members did number agree.
Accordingly, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights to all of them by its order dated 20.8.1975 according to their possession over the respective shares of the land.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.
This time also, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the case to the Tribunal for re enquiry and disposal.
Writ Petition No.
The High Court again allowed the writ petition, remitted the case to the Tribunal for re enquiry and disposal.
The Tribunal visited the land on 20.8.1975 in presence of all the applicants and made enquiries with the adjacent land owners.
Thus, the order of the Tribunal stood restored.
showed the name of Dattoba as cultivator.
The land in question was item number 4 in the companypromise deed with respect to which it was stated that the said land shall remain in the possession of all the four.
Four Members opined to grant of occupancy rights in favour of all the four applicants according to their shares but the Chairman did number agree with them.
43 measuring 2 acres 23 guntas exclusively to himself.
The facts found in the case are that Dettoba Desai applied for grant of occupancy rights over the entire survey number 43 measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas claiming to be the protected tenant over the said land for over 50 years.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, on re appreciation of the evidence, allowed the writ petition by his order dated 10.8.1998 holding that the occupancy rights in respect of the said land vest exclusively in Dattobas branch and remaining branches of the family do number have any share in the said land.
The 3 applicants stated that the entries in the R.O.Rs.
After the remand, the Tribunal after hearing the parties by its order dated 23.6.1981 held that these 4 applicants were entitled for cultivatory right to the extent of 1/4th share.
No doubt, entries in these R.O.Rs.
remained in the name of Dattoba, being the manager of the joint family but after partition, each one of them was cultivating personally his respective share of the land.
Shivaraj V. Patil J. One Dattoba Daji Saheba Desai filed Form No.
7 under Section 48 A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for short the Act before the Land Tribunal for short the Tribunal , Belgaum, claiming occupancy rights over the land Survey No.
