CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sri V Rangappa vs The Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram Sub Division Ramanagaram Bangalore Rural District, Smt Jayamma, Sri Seenappa and Smt Lakshmamma

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 9 November 2011 · Citation: (2011) 11 KAR CK 0160

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajit J. Gunjal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 — Section 44, 77 A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1067 of 2009 (LR)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 342 words

Ajit J. Gunjal

1.

According to the petitioner, his father was cultivating the land in question as a tenant under the landlord one Kanchethimmiah @ Kenchagappa for more than 3 decades. After the death of the petitioner''s father, petitioner continued the tenancy and he is in possession. The petitioner''s father could not make an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. But, however, after introduction of Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, an application is made by the petitioner in Form No. 7-A of the Act for grant of land. The case of the petitioner is that the landlord has admitted the tenancy. In the circumstances, both the competent authority as well as the Tribunal were not justified in rejecting the application,

2.

Sri N.S. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the very statement made by the landlord discloses that the petitioner is in occupation.

3.

I have perused the impugned order passed by the competent authority as well as the tribunal Apparently, before Section 77-A is made applicable, two conditions are essential One is that the petitioner must be a tenant as on 1.3.1974 and the land should vest in the Government u/s 44 of the Act The other is as on the date of application, he must be in possession. Unless these twin conditions are satisfied, the question of entertaining the application, in Form No. 7-A would not arise. Both the competent authority as well as the Tribunal have found that the petitioner has foiled to establish that there is a vesting and also that he was in possession as on the date of making an application.

In so for as the statement is concerned, that by itself cannot be construed that the petitioner is cultivating the land as a tenant.

4.

Having said so, I am of the view that the question of interfering with the concurrent finding does not arise. Petition stands rejected.

Sri Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.