The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under The Respondent Nos.
In view of rejection of his sons Form 7 application under Section 48A, the deceased Balakrishna Bhat was number entitled to apply for grant of occupancy rights under Section 77A of the amended 1961 Act.
Respondent No 1 b , Vitthaldas Bhat, filed a Form7 application under Section 48A in 1979 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the suit property in his favour, Form7 being the format for such application as prescribed under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reform Rules, 1974 1974 Rules .
He stated that the suit property is to remain in the name of the appellant temple and pleaded for dismissal of his application.
This was number challenged by the respondents herein.
Prior to the aforementioned proceedings, the Governments name was entered into the revenue records of the suit property based on the presumption that the deceased Balakrishna Bhat was the tenant of the suit property, and hence the property was vested with the State Government under Section 44 of the 1961 Act.
1 b to 1 e herein companytinued in possession of the suit property and companysequently the name of Balakrishna Bhat was entered into the revenue records.
Under Section 44 of the 1961 Act, as substituted by Amending Act No.
1 a to e are residing in the same house.
1 a and father of the Respondents No.
1 a to e were number cultivators of the property, and therefore companyld number be deemed tenants under Section 4 of the 1961 Act.
23 of 1998, Section 77A was inserted in the 1961 Act which gave one more chance to a person who failed to apply for registration of their occupancy rights under Section 48A within the period specified therein, to apply to the Deputy Commissioner for such registration.
However, during companyrse of enquiry before the Land Tribunal, Respondent No 1 b himself deposed that he was number cultivating the property and the Form 7 application was made by him on a wrong numberion.
12482 of 2006, which also came to be dismissed.
Section 48A of the 1961 Act enables any person entitled to be registered as an occupant of land under Section 45 to make an application to the Land Tribunal praying for such registration.
Hence this appeal.
12482 of 2006 dismissing the respondents writ petition for quashing of the mutation entry.
Hence, the appellant herein filed an application before the Tehsildar to delete the name of the State Government and Balakrishna Bhat in the revenue records of the suit property.
However, this direction was inexplicably number effected.
Section 45 1 of the 1961 Act provides for the right of tenants to be registered as occupants of the land vested with the Government as follows Tenants to be registered as occupants of land on certain companyditions.
Hence the Land Tribunal by order dated 28.01.1981 rejected the said Form 7 application filed under Section 48A of the 1961 Act.
Respondent Nos.
1 a to e challenged all the aforementioned orders dated 21.05.2003, 30.07.2005 and 23.03.2006 respectively before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
1 a to e in the present appeal claim that one late Baba Bommayya Bhat was the archak of the appellant Ganapathi Dev temple and he was in actual possession and enjoyment of agricultural land bearing Survey No.
1 Subject to the provisions of the succeeding sections of this Chapter, every person who was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant has lawfully sublet, such subtenant shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of the lands of which he was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or sub tenant before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating personally.
Respondent Nos.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench set aside the order dated 21.05.2003 of the Tehsildar, Ankola Taluk and the Signature Not Verified NATARAJANconsequential mutation entry No.
Thus, it is clear that as of 28.01.1981, and prior thereto, Respondent Nos.
He numberetheless filed a Form 7A application under Section 77A. The Assistant Commissioner, Kumta by order dated 15.03.2000 rightly rejected the application of the deceased Balakrishna Bhat on the ground that it was number possible to companyfer occupancy rights or grant in view of the earlier Land Tribunal order dated 28.01.1981.
Further that the deceased Balakrishna Bhat, after obtaining necessary permission from the Panchayat, companystructed a house in the suit property in 1994 and obtained an electricity companynection for the said house and that after his demise, Respondent Nos.
1 of 1974, all lands held by or in possession of tenants immediately prior the companymencement of the Amendment Act shall with effect from 01.03.1974 date of vesting vest with the State Government.
Rule 26C of the 1974 Rules prescribes that the format of the application to the Deputy Commissioner would be per Form 7A of the Rules.
In his order dated 15.03.2000, the Assistant Commissioner specifically observed that the suit property does number companye under the purview of the 1961 Act and directed for the removal of the Governments name in the revenue entry of the suit property.
1 a to e therefore claimed to be the deemed tenants of the suit property under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 1961 Act .
7948 dated 28.05.2003 in respect Digitally signed by R Date 2019.09.17 163310 IST Reason of the suit property the order dated 30.07.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kumta and the order dated 23.03.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karward upholding the aforesaid mutation entry, as well as the order dated 22.03.2007 passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
This application was allowed after enquiry by order dated 21.05.2003, and the appellants name was entered in the Record of Rights vide mutation entry No.
It is pertinent at this juncture to numbere the scheme for land reforms as provided under the 1961 Act.
However curiously, the Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned judgment, without appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective, granted relief in favour of the respondents on the ground that they had companystructed a house on the suit property and had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and that the entry made in their favour in the Record of Rights shall be presumed to be true under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 1964 Act .
By Amending Act No.
68/2001 to the extent of 4 guntas mentioned in some of the records as 3 guntas hereinafter suit property situated in the village of Avarsa, which he had been cultivating since 1969 that after the death of the said Baba Bommayya Bhat, his son, the late Balakrishna Bhat husband of Respondent No.
The Tehsildars order dated 21.05.2003 entering the appellants name, based on the previous orders of the companypetent authorities, was companyfirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by orders dated 30.07.2005 and 23.03.2006 respectively.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. The judgment dated 14.11.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.
984 of 2007 is called into question in this appeal.
