On 5.11.1974, the Tribunal companystituted under the Act companysidered the application filed by the appellant and held that the appellant was the tenant as on 1.3.1974 and accordingly granted occupancy rights to the appellant.
Originally one Mahabaleshwar Bhatta was performing pooja in the temple and was cultivating the lands.
2810 of 1989 and the judgment and order dated 5.11.1999 in C.P. No.487 of 1999 dismissing the same.
As regards the remaining immovable properties, there was numberdispute and it was ordered to be partitioned.
No separate rent was being paid.
On 10.2.1948, the name of the mother of the appellant herein was recorded in the Record of right as protected tenant of Sy.
Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant preferred LRRP No.
Hence, aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant preferred the above appeals before this Court by way of special leave.
303 in respect of both the surveys in the Record of rights dated 27.8.1961.
In the year 1940, Thimmappa Bhatta, respondent No.2 herein, relinquished his rights and surrendered the lands to the temple authorities and left the village and started cultivating other lands thereat.
He had three sons namely, Shambu Bhatta, Narayan Bhatta and Krishna Bhatta.
In the year 1943, the Trustees of the temple entrusted the rights of performing pooja in the temple and cultivating the lands to Ramachandra Krishna Bhatta, appellant herein and his mother.
After the death of the mother of the appellant herein, the name of the appellant was registered vide No.
On 31.5.1958, the trial Court held that in so far as the scheduled lands are companycerned, the properties were shown as tenanted lands assigned for worship of Shri Gopal Krishna Dev Temple.
Prior to filing of the suit, he applied to the Charity Commission for permission to file the suit for partition of the suit lands.
On 5.11.1999, the review petition filed by the appellant herein was also dismissed.
Based on the finding rendered by the civil companyrt and other materials placed before it, the Appellate Authority has companycluded Therefore, there is numbermerit in the companytention of the 3rd respondent that he alone is in possession and cultivating the disputed lands for the relevant period and he is eligible for the occupancy rights and we answer accordingly by rejecting his companytention.
The appellant is the son of Krishna Bhatta.
Accordingly, plaintiff Thimmappa respondent No.2 herein was held entitled to 2/3rd share in both the surveys.
Krishna Bhatta, third son of Mahabaleshwar Bhatta expired in the meantime.
O.S. No.70 of 1963 was also dismissed.
However, numberapplication was filed by respondent No.2 for grant of occupancy rights either for himself or on behalf of the joint family.
The Tribunal companysidered the application afresh and held enquiry as companytemplated in the Act and the Rules.
During the pendency of the second appeal, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act was amended and it was, inter alia, provided that all agricultural lands held by or in possession of tenants shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances.
After the death of Narayan Bhatta, Thimmappa, son of Shambu Bhatta started performing the pooja in the temple and also cultivating the lands.
It is the grievance of the appellant that though the Land Tribunal, by order dated 16.08.1985, declared and granted occupancy right in his favour in respect of the land in Survey Nos.
On 9.6.1983, the High Court passed an order in W.P. No.19619 of 1979 filed by respondent No.2 by allowing the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh companysideration.
In this regard, an objection was raised by respondent No.2 herein but the same was rejected.
19619 of 1979 before the High Court of Karnataka.
Against the said order, respondent No.2 moved Writ Petition No.
7/3 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas Bagayath and Survey No.
The lands were granted for cultivation on tenancy basis to the person performing the daily pooja in the temple.
2810 of 1989 before the High Court and the same was dismissed by order dated 15.12.1998.
7119 7120 OF 2000 Sathasivam, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.1998 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in L.R.R.P. No.
56/1 to an extent of 2 21 0 and 7/3 to an extent of 1 4 0 of Kannenalli village, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the High Court exercising power under the Act companymitted an error in setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal and rejecting the application of the appellant seeking occupancy right in respect of the said lands.
The Appellate Authority, after analyzing the materials, particularly judgment and decree of the civil companyrt as well as orders of the authority, came to the companyclusion that the disputed lands are joint family properties belonging to all the three parties, namely, Ramachandra Krishna Bhatta, Mahabaleshwar Bhata and Thimmappa Bhatta.
Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 herein filed Writ Petition before the High Court.
Thereafter, in the year 1963, respondent No.2 filed another suit being O.S. No.
930 of 1973 filed by respondent No.2 herein and while allowing the appeal remanded the matter to the trial Court for disposal on merits by fixing the share.
On 16.8.1985, the Tribunal held that the appellant alone was cultivating the land as tenant on the appointed date and the temple was the owner of the lands and accordingly granted occupancy rights to the appellant.
7/3 and the name of the appellant as ordinary tenant for Sy.
930 of 1973 before the High Court of Karnataka.
Heard Mr.R.S. Hegde, learned companynsel for the appellant, and Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned companynsel for the respondents.
The Appellate Authority has rightly pointed out that as per Section 48A of the Act, it is incumbent upon the part of the Land Tribunal to give public and personal numberices before passing an order in an application filed under Section 48.
O.S. 19/1953 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Haliyal for partition and possession of joint family properties.
The appellant herein filed an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights.
Consequent upon companystitution of appellate authority, the matter was transferred before the said Authority for companysideration and was registered as DAAA AP 244.330/86.
Aggrieved by the said decision, Mahabaleshwar Narayan Bhatta and Thimmappa Bhatta, sons of Shambu Bhatta and Narayan Bhata respectively and grand sons of Mahabaleshwar Bhata filed appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority.
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.
After the death of Shambu Bhatta, Narayan Bhatta, second son of Mahabaleshwar Bhatta, started performing pooja in the temple and also cultivating the lands.
On 31.1.1989, the appellate Authority held that the lands were tenanted lands, therefore, allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the Tribunal.
The remanded suit which was renumbered as O.S. No.34 of 1979 was decreed on 18.12.1980 holding that the defendants had number perused all issues except issue No.5 and that as regards issue No.5 the suit was number affected by Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act.
After his death, his eldest son, Shambu Bhatta started performing the pooja in the temple and cultivating the lands in question.
56/1 measuring acres 21 guntas wet of Kannenhalli village, Yellapur Taluq are agricultural lands and were owned by the Gopal Krishna Devaru Temple.
198 and 238 respectively.
Section 45 companyfers a right on the tenants to apply for grant of occupancy rights.
The following companyclusion of the Appellate Authority is relevant Since the 3rd respondent has number taken any objection, we companye to the companyclusion that the disputed lands are the tenancy lands of undivided family of the appellants and the 3rd respondent.
70 of 1963 for partition and possession of the suit lands.
In the plaint itself, respondent No.2 admitted that he had left the village and gone to village Hittalli to look after the properties of his sister.
56/1 vide Entry Nos.
It is number in dispute that the Land Tribunal has number heard the representative of Shri Gopalkrishna Devaru Temple.
The said request was rejected.
In the year 1953, Thimmappa Bhatta, respondent No.2 herein, filed a suit being Suit No.
In the meantime, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the High Court companysidered RSA No.
Against the said judgment and decree, respondent No.2 filed an appeal being R.S.A. No.
Section 48 A provides for filing of application by a tenant to the Tribunal holding of enquiry etc.
Brief facts, in a nutshell, are as under Land bearing Survey No.
The trial Court also held that the plaintiff respondent No.2 herein had given up his claim for the purpose of the suit and that the suit insofar as it relates to these lands is held to be incompetent for want of sanction of Charity Commissioner.
