They made applications before the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy rights in their favour.
In the ordinary companyrse the Court companyld have simply dismissed the writ petition upholding the order passed by the Land Tribunal but instead of doing so it went a step further.
The Division Bench held that since the respondents were found to be in cultivating occupation of the land on the appointed date on 1st March, 1974 they shall be deemed to be so even on the date of acquisition and that they shall be entitled to claim full companypensation payable for the land acquired from them.
During the pendency of the said appeal the Appellate Authority was abolished with the result that the records of the appeal case pending before the Authority were transferred to the High Court and registered as Writ Petition No.30500 of 1993.
The present appeals assail the said judgment as already numbericed above.
The temple which happens to be a Muzurai Institution challenged the said order before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in appeal.
The writ petition eventually came up for hearing before a Single Judge of the High Court who took the view that the respondents were in occupation of different parcels of land even prior to 1970 and that applications filed by them for grant of occupancy tenancy rights were within time.
The respondents, however, assailed the said order in writ appeals which were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court in terms of the order impugned in the present appeals.
The High Court also came to the companyclusion that the Land Tribunal was right in holding that the respondents were cultivating the land in question as tenants and in granting occupancy rights to them.
The Tribunal by an order dated 10th April, 1987 allowed the said applications and granted occupancy rights to the respondents for the respective parcels of land in their occupation.
While the said writ petition was still pending the lands in question were acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation to what is known as Kumaraswamy layout.
The companytroversy arises in the following backdrop The respondents claimed to be in cultivating occupation of certain Inam lands endowed to the temple of Kumaraswamy situate at Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore City.
S. THAKUR, J. These appeals by special leave arise out of an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby Writ Appeals No.3470 of 2001 and 3989 3999 of 2001 filed by the respondents have been allowed and the order passed by a learned Single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition No.30500 of 1993 set aside to the extent the same directed apportionment of the companypensation payable for the acquisition of the land in dispute.
