Sri. Purushothama Gatti, Smt. Chandravathi and Ganga vs State of Karnataka and The Authorised Authority U/S 77(a) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Head Quarters Assistant, Deputy Commissioner''s Office Mangalore, D.K.

Ajit J. Gunjal

The petitioners claim that their mother one Muthamma was sub--tenant in respect of the lands in question. It is their case that their mother had acquired the said agricultural property on lease in the year 1965 from the father of respondent No. 2. It is their case that they could not make an application for grant of occupancy rights in Form No. 7. But however, after amendment, they have made an application u/s 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act claiming grant. The said application is rejected by the competent authority and is confirmed by the Tribunal as against which the alleged legal heirs of the subtenant are before this Court.

I have heard Mr. Neeraj Karanth, learned counsel appearing for Sri. K. Srihari, for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.B. Shastry, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.

Undoubtedly, respondent No. 3 filed an application for grant of occupancy rights in Form No. 7. Initially, occupancy rights were granted in respect of one land and rejected insofar as the other lands are concerned. The same was questioned by way of a writ petition by owner as well as the tenant--respondent No. 3. The matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Once again, after remission, the application of the 3rd respondent was granted in part i.e., insofar as one Survey number is concerned. Insofar as the remaining survey numbers are concerned, the same was rejected. Hence, appeals were filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal by both the landlord as well as the tenant. The appeal of the 2nd respondent was allowed and that of the 3rd respondent was dismissed as against which two revisions were preferred once again by the landlord as well as by the tenant. Both the revision petitions were dismissed by this Court, thus confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority granting occupancy rights only to a limited extent in respect of Sy.No. 33/12 measuring 1 acre 60 cents. Thus, to that extent, the matter attained finality between respondents 2 and 3.

The mother of the petitioners, as observed made an application for the grant of their land. Respondent No. 3 is arrayed as a landlord who admits the tenancy of the petitioners. The competent authority nevertheless was of the view that it is not open for the petitioners to claim the land inoreso having regard to the fact that the 3rd respondent was not successful in getting occupancy rights conferred in his favour. The Appellate Tribunal, on appeal by the petitioners has confirmed the order moreso, having regard to the earlier proceedings.

Indeed it is to be noticed that the mother of the petitioners Muthamma claims to be a sub--tenant under respondent No. 3, who appears to be none other than a close relative. Be that as it may, the petitioners have not been able to prove that they were in possession as on the date when they made an application and there was no vesting as on 01.03.1974 moreso with reference to the earlier proceedings. Hence, the question of interfering with the orders passed by the competent authority as well as the Tribunal, in the circumstances, does not arise. There is no merit "in this petition.

Petition stands rejected.

Sri. R. Kumar, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 and 4 to permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.