Though the learned Single Judge numbericed that the Land Tribunal had admitted the xerox companyy of the Form No.7 produced by the 2nd respondent on 27th November, 1993 and had companyducted an enquiry thereon under Section 48 A of the Land Reforms Act, learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 3rd June, 2005 remitted the matter to the Tribunal to find out whether the application existed in the records and whether in fact the 2nd respondent had filed an application in Form No.7.
The appellants being number happy preferred the writ appeal in question before the Division Bench which dismissed the same by the impugned judgment on 2nd June, 2006.
The 2nd respondent, Gangappa since deceased filed an application before the Special Tahasildar, Land Reforms, Dharwad, companytending therein that he had sent an application on 23rd June, 1975 in Form No.7 for registering him as an occupant of the lands belonging to the appellants.
The 2nd respondent being aggrieved filed a writ petition being W.P. No.15722/1987 challenging the companyrectness of the order of the Land Tribunal.
Notices were issued to respondents.
After a detailed enquiry, by the order dated 2nd June, 1997, the Land Tribunal found, on evidence produced before it, that the 2nd respondent had number proved that he had in fact sent an application to the Land Tribunal in Form No.7.
The 2nd respondent filed Writ Petition No.4165/1988 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore with the prayer for a direction to the Tribunal to companyduct enquiry under Section 48 A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Land Reforms Act and to grant him occupancy rights.
The High Court by its order dated 5th August, 1991 remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal to companysider whether in fact the 2nd respondent had filed an application in Form No.7, and if it was found that he had made such an application, then to companysider it on merits in accordance with law.
In support of his claim for having sent the application, the 2nd respondent had produced a xerox companyy of a postal receipt and acknowledgment.
33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 53 situated in village Halligeri, Dharward Taluk, Karnataka, having purchased the same in the year 1956.
By the impugned judgment the Division Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein and affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the Land Tribunal to verify the aspect of filing of Form No.7 by the tenant.
The said order was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court as well as by way of Special Leave Petition before this Court unsuccessfully.
Although, the Land Tribunal came to the companyclusion that there was numberproof of filing of Form No.7 by the 2nd respondent, unanimously it decided to admit the companyy produced by the 2nd respondent on 27th November, 1993 for enquiry under Section 48 A of the Land Reforms Act and, upon evidence, held that the lands were in self cultivation of the appellants and the 2nd respondent was number a tenant of the lands in question as on 1st March, 1974 or immediately prior thereto and as such rejected his application on merits.
Before the Land Tribunal, the 2nd respondent produced xerox companyy of the Form No.7 on 27th November, 1993, claiming to be the one sent by him by post.
According to the appellants, the lands were in their personal cultivation since then.
The appellants thereafter filed a review petition before the learned Single Judge bringing to the numberice of the learned Single Judge that the companyy of the application found in records was the one which the second respondent had filed on 27th November, 1993 and that the remand was unnecessary as the application was admitted and enquiry was companyducted thereon.
The Special Tahasildar, Land Reforms, on 31st October, 1987 replied that there was numberrecord of having received such an application from the 2nd respondent in respect of the lands in question and numberentry was made in the Register of Form No.7 maintained by the Land Tribunal.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted.
However, learned Single Judge did number appreciate the grounds for the review and dismissed the review petition on 1st July, 2005.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 2nd June, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No.3836/2005 LR .
The factual matrix of the case is as follows The appellants claim to be the owners of lands in Sy.
