The High Court by an order dated 29.9.1986 transmitted the records to the Appellate Authority, Shimoga in view of the amendment and the same was registered as LRA W No.
The Land Tribunal took up the matter for companysideration by permitting the parties to lead evidence, recorded the evidence of Manjunatha, Subbaraya, Gowdara Nanjappa, Vrundamna and the evidence of the petitioner Matada Basaiah.
The present petitioner Matada Basaiah also filed application for grant of occupancy right as tenant under Subbaraya in respect of the land measuring 2 acre 6 guntas.
The High Court formulated two issues for companysideration Whether the jurisdiction exercised by the Land Tribunal in so far as the adjudication of the matter involving the Inam lands prior to rendering of the judgment in Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1992 Kar 1827 dated 24.4.1992 is bad and thereby the matter requires to be remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner for adjudication?
No.41/2 as a tenant under the temple.
By the impugned order before the High Court the Appellate Tribunal had set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Shimoga Taluk in short the Tribunal .
No.41/2 to the extent of 1 acre 20.guntas.
Being aggrieved of the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner who is a rival tenant has companye up with this revision.
1 was a tenant in respect of land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in Survey No.
1 was to be a lessee and an application was filed which was rejected.
1s stand before the High Court was that Inamdar Subbaraya, Respondent No.
Vrundamma filed applications for grant of occupancy rights.
The Appellate Authority, by its order dated 27.10.1988 allowed the appeal of Gowdara Nanjappa setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 17.4.1986 in so far as it.
Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal had rightly interfered with the order of the Tribunal.
Subsequently he claimed that he was a tenant.
3,6/2, 20 and 41/2 situated at Venkatapura village are the Inam lands endowed to Sri Kudli Rameshwara Devaru.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The lands in Sy.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submits that the approach is clearly erroneous.
Therefore the Land Tribunal was number justified in companyferring the occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent matala Basaiah to an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas on the version of Subbaraya who himself had claimed occupancy rights of the suit land, and who had numberauthority to lease the lands on behalf of Rameswara Devaru Deity.
It is pointed out that the appellant appears as a tenant in the RTC record.
The order of the Land Tribunal was questioned by Gowdars Nanjappa, who is respondent No.1 in W.P. No.9587/86 before the High Court.
The Land Tribunal by its order dated 11.9.1981 granted occupancy right in favour of Gowlara Nanjappa to the extent of 2 acres 6 guntas and in respect of other applicants who are number parties in this petition.
Subbaraya filed Form No.
After companysidering the report and the entries made in the property and income of Muzrai Institutions maintained in the Taluk Office and also the entries found in the quit rent register, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 17.4.1986 granted occupancy rights in favour of Matada Basaiah to an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas and an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Smt.
The said order was questioned by the present petitioner in W.P. No.17043/83 before this Court.
Gowdara Nanjappa also filed Form No.1 claiming 2 acres 6 guntas in Sy.
1 claiming to be an Inamdar to the entire extent of 27 acres 29 guntas in the above survey numbers.
Initially claim of respondent No.
As discussed above, Rameswara Devaru Deity is admittedly Khatedar of the suit land and there is numbermaterial on record to show that the 4th respondent Subbaraya was authorized to lease the suit land on behalf of Rameswara Devaru Deity.
The High Court relied only on Subbarayas evidence.
Respondent No.
A finding recorded by the appellate authority has also relevance It is significant to numbere that the name of Subbaraya who claims himself to be the landlord of the suit land does number appear in the pahanies and RTC extracts of the suit land at any time either as owner or as a tenant.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The High Court also failed to numberice that Subbaraya himself has numberright or title or interest in the land and his application for grant of occupancy right was rejected.
41/2A. It was held that the Tribunal had rightly granted occupancy right in his favour.
Stand of the present appellant before the High Court was that occupancy has been granted based on the entries in the R.T.C. extract and presumption arises regarding the possession and cultivation.
In the revision petition challenge was to the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga in short the Appellate Tribunal .
8060 OF 2001 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the revision filed by Respondent No.
749/86 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority.
In respect of the said lands, the applicants Sri Subbaraya, Gowdara nanjappa, Matada Basaiah and Smt.
Unfortunately the High Court overlooked the fact that the spot inspection was made in1986 and such spot inspection did number have a relevance to decide the basic issues.
The revenue entries related to past period and were spread over a number of years and companytinued till appointed date.
Another person Manjappa, husband of Vruddamma also filed an application for grant of occupancy right in Sy.
The High Court appears to have placed emphasis on the spot inspection made by the Tribunal.
relates to an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas which was companyferred, in favour of Matada Basatah.
Vrundamma.
Learned companynsel for the respondents supported the High Courts order.
1 under Section 121 A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in short the Act .
It appears that the High Court did number accept the presumptive value of the entries made in the R.T.C. extract but relied upon certain spot inspection made by the Tribunal.
