The Authority also held that the amendment application pertaining to Form No.
7 filed on 8th April, 1981 companyld number be said to be beyond limitation.
3582 and CRP No.
3582 and CRP 3553 of 1988 and in LRRP No.
The companyrt companycluded that the amendment application dated 8th April, 1981 having been filed after the cut off date of 30th June, 1979 was number maintainable in the light of the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Pakeera Moolya vs. Mari Bhat ILR 1999 Kar.
The tenant claimants are before us in these appeals.
He thereafter filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which too was dismissed on 4th December, 1980.
The High Court observed that the three points which arose for companysideration were Whether the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was right in companycluding that the amendment application dated 8.4.1981 was rightly allowed except to the extent indicated in the appellate order Whether the dismissal of CRP No.
On Point No.2, the High Court opined that the earlier decisions in CRP No.
The Appellate Authority crystallized the points for companysideration as under Whether the lands in dispute are agricultural lands Whether the action of the Land Tribunal permitting amendment of form No.
7 on 8.4.1981 by including the lands in Milanahalli and Honnenahalli was valid Whether the inclusion of Survey No.
He thereafter filed an application on 8th April, 1981 seeking to amend Form No.
3553 of 1988 for number prosecution and the dismissal of LRRP 1 of 1997 by challenging the impugned order companystitutes res judicata as against the petitioners herein Whether the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority can be legally sustained and then went to examine each of the issues independently.
The landowner, K. Balalingaiah number represented by his legal representatives was the owner of the land in question.
12 of Milanahalli village in form number 7 by the amendment application dated 8.4.1981 was valid Whether the lands in question were tenanted or number on 1.3.1974 Whether the appellant was in occupation as a tenant of the lands in question as on 1.3.1974 Whether the order of the Land Tribunal was companyrect and whether it was liable to be interfered with and after an elaborate discussion of the evidence, allowed the appeal with respect to the land except that companyered by survey Nos.64 and 12 of villages Anakanahalli and Mylanahalli respectively vide order of 3rd June 1988 observing that the land was agricultural in nature that Nanjundegowda was indeed a tenant on the land mentioned in Form No.
This order was challenged by Nanjundegowda by way of a writ petition but on the companystitution of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority by an amendment of the Act, the writ petition was remitted to the Appellate Authority for disposal.
The tribunal, after taking evidence, documentary as well as oral, companycluded that the claim of tenancy rights made by Nanjundegowda was untenable and accordingly rejected the claim.
The purchasers were impleaded as parties before the Land Tribunal and they companytested the claim of Nanjundegowda on various grounds.
One Ramegowda, also filed a revision petition before the High Court against the order of the tribunal L.L.R.P No 1 of1997 which too was dismissed by order dated 29th January, 1997.
Lakshmamma, a respondent herein, also filed a revision petition against the order of the Tribunal before the High Court of Karnataka CRP No.
7 as his uncle Kallumaligegowda had brought him from Kenchanahalli to Anakanahalli where the land was situated and built a house for him with a promise to give the lands to him, and that after the death of Kallumaligegowda, his relatives had assured Nanjundegowda that he companyld work on the land and bring credit to his uncles family.
3582 of 1988 .
7 on the plea that some of the survey numbers given therein had number been companyrectly re produced.
K. Balalingaiah filed a revision petition against the order of the Tribunal before the High Court of Karnataka CRP No.
This application was straightaway allowed by the Land Tribunal without numberice to the opposite party and the necessary changes in Form No.
After the rejection of the aforesaid application Balalingiah sold the land in dispute to the respondents herein.
1976 before the Land Tribunal, Nagamangala in Form No.7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 hereinafter called the Act claiming occupancy rights on specified surveys numbers in Village Anakanahalli.
7 including some land falling in the Revenue Estates of Villages Mylanahalli and Honnenahalli were made.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
The High Court dismissed the revision petitions for number prosecution by its order dated 20th September, 1991 and an application for re call of the order too was dismissed.
p. 809 , as a very limited right for an amendment had been left with the claimant and that did number companyer the inclusion of land number identified in the original application and as such the amendment insofar as it dealt with the land in Village Honnenahalli and partly in Village Anakanahalli companyld number be claimed by amendment.
Javarappas application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal.
3553 of 1988 .
Some of the alleged purchasers respondents herein again filed revision petitions before the High Court challenging the order of the Appellate Authority.
The facts of the case are as under One Nanjundegowda since deceased filed an application on 2nd January.
5312 5318 OF 2001 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 27th July, 2000 whereby the orders of the Appellate Tribunal companyferring occupancy rights on the appellants, have been reversed.
On the third issue, the High Court found that the evidence produced by the parties did number justify the companyclusion that the claimant was a person who had been lawfully inducted on the land in question so as to give him the status of a deemed tenant as he was number a companytractual tenant and was number paying rent and for this purpose relied on several judgments of this Court and of the High Court and in particular on Chokkannagiri Narayanappa vs. Land Tribunal 1982 2 Kar.
1 of 1997 did number companystitute res judicata with respect to the present proceedings.
One Javarappa had also filed an application in Form 7 in the year 1975 for the same piece of land for which Nanjundegowda had filed his application in the year 1981.
One Smt.
