The Appellate Tribunal found that 1st respondent was a tenant of the land on the relevant date and, therefore, has acquired occupancy rights.
The High Court despite delay, entertained the petition and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the case afresh after taking the evidence.
In the year 1975, the 1st respondent herein filed an application in Form 7 before the land Tribunal for giving him occupancy rights in respect of the said land.
It appears that after the respondents application for grant of occupancy right was rejected by the Land Tribunal, he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka.
Bhagawa filed a suit for recovery of possession of the said land, which was dismissed in default.
The Tribunal after remand, permitted the parties to lead evidence and after fresh inquiry rejected the claim of respondent No.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed.
Subsequently the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the land but the same was allowed to be withdrawn.
1 for sale of the aforesaid land for companysideration of a sum of Rs.
Bhagawa executed an agreement in favour of respondent No.
On 1st of March.
1974 amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force.
Bhagawa was the owner of Survey Plot Nos.
The said application was rejected on 6th of October.
1, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal.
On 20th of December, 1972 Smt.
Upon the matter being remanded to the Land Tribunal, the appellant purchased the land from Smt.
Bhagawa through a registered sale deed.
One Smt.
Thereafter, Smt.
Respondent No.
Against the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
The appellant alleged that the respondent came into possession upon the said land in pursuance of the said agreement.
629/1 and 629/2.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
11,500/ .
