The Land Tribunal, after companysidering the objections of the first respondent and holding an Inquiry into the claims, appears to have granted occupancy rights in their favour on the view that the claimants were in lawful possession and cultivation of the said lands as on 01.03.1974.
The first respondent, who is the owner of the lands, filed W.P. Nos.
Aggrieved, the first respondent, as indicated earlier, challenged before the High Court that part of the order granting occupancy rights in favour of the appellant and the appellant challenged that part of the order which denied such occupancy rights in respect of 25 cents of lands, numbericed above, over which the Saw Mill building was located.
After the amendments introduced to the Act in the year 1986 companystituting Land Reforms District Appellate Forums.
The Writ Petitions seem to have been transmitted to the Appellate Authority, Mangalore, and the said Authority, on companysidering the materials on record, upheld the grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question, except 25 cents of Survey No.70 over which the Saw Mill as such stood and therefore used for number agricultural purpose.
Hence, these appeals.
In the said Lease Deed, it has been specifically stated that the purpose of the lease of land in dispute was for running a Saw Mill in the name and style of Gokulam Industries and Saw Mills and secured undisputed possession of the above property with liberty to carry on any other Industry or business as may deem fit within the period of lease.
The above appeals have been filed against the companymon Order dated 21.09.2000 of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court made in R.R.P. No.3817 of 1990 filed by the appellant herein before the High Court and L.R.R.P. No.4033 of 1990 filed by the first respondent herein , whereunder the learned Single Judge, while affirming that portion of the order passed by the Appellate Authority granting partial relief to the 1st respondent to which the challenge was made by the appellant, also allowed the claim made by the first respondent herein challenging the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority wherein that Authority granted relief in favour of the appellant, for the remaining extent companyered by the lease under companysideration.
Arising out of S.L.P. C Nos.1395 1396 of 2001 RAJU, J. Leave granted.
The rent fixed also was a monthly rental, only.
Since the appellant wanted to enter into direct relationship and obtain rent receipts also in his favour, the first respondent appears to have executed a fresh Registered Lease Deed dated 12.09.1969 in favour of the appellant, in which it appears a specific reference is made to the Deed of Transfer dated 16.11.1968 for a period of ten years from 01.09.1969 to 31.08.1979.
