ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioners, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hirekerur dated 13th April, 1989 in case No. KLR/SK/VLR/24/HIREKERUR, had filed an appeal on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Haveri in LRA No. 116 of 1989. When the matter was pending adjudication, in view of the amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the constitution of the Appellate Authority was abolished and the parties were permitted to file a civil petition. Accordingly, the petitioners filed Civil Petition No. 7802 of 1991 and the same is converted into the instant writ petition.
2. The petitioners claiming to be tenants had filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 36/1 measuring 01 acre 08 guntas and the application filed by the petitioners had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal on 7th February, 1977 and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners. Assailing the said order, the State had preferred a writ petition in No. 2151 of 1981 before this Court. This Court, after hearing, allowed the writ petition filed by the State and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 7th February, 1977 and remanded the matter for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. After remand, the matter was taken up for consideration by the Land Tribunal afresh. After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners, giving a specific finding for rejection of their claim stating that, the alleged entry found in the ROR from the years 1968 to 1974 showing the name of the deceased petitioner in the cultivator’s column is without any basis and the mode of cultivation is shown as ‘1’. But, thereafter, as per the Diary No. 853, the deceased petitioner’s name has been certified and subsequently, since the land in question came under personal inams as per Diary No. 626, the said land has been vested in the Government. The deceased petitioner has appeared and given the statement that, he is cultivating the land in question but has failed to produce any documentary evidence. After enquiry, it was found that, the land in question was regranted to the inamdar by the Competent Authority and the application of the deceased petitioner was rejected.
3. The principal ground urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the name of the deceased petitioner is found in the Record of Rights from the agricultural years 1968-69 to 1973-74 and thereafter the mutation also has been certified in Diary No. 853 and his name has been continued and he is in possession of the said land as tenant on the basis of the lease and subsequently, he has entered into an agreement of sale. He submitted that, in the agreement of sale, the first respondent has admitted the possession of the petitioner as tenant. He submitted that, this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has proceeded to pass the order contrary to the oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated and completed is contrary to the direction issued by this Court and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents has made available the original records and substantiated the order passed by the Land Tribunal. He has taken me through the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hirekerur, wherein the Land Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence given by the deceased petitioner, has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners and the petitioners have failed to substantiate that, they are cultivating the said land as tenant as on 1st March, 1974 and prior to that.
5. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, it is seen that, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law or illegality. After critical evaluation of the evidence given by the petitioners and the inamdar and after going through the documentary evidence available on file, the Tribunal has given a specific finding that the alleged entry found in Diary No. 853 is one without any basis and the alleged entry showing the name of the deceased petitioner in the ROR from the years 1968 to 1974 in the cultivators column is also without any basis, but the mode of cultivation is shown as ‘1’. The said entry has been corroborated by the inamdar who has appeared before the Land Tribunal, stating that on enquiry, this land was not given to the petitioners on lease basis and the said land is regranted by the Competent Authority in his favour. Further, the Tribunal has assigned a specific reason for non-consideration of the request of the petitioners, stating that, as per Mutation Diary Nov. 626, the land in question is an inam land and has been vested in the Government. Once the land is vested in the Government, in pursuance of the Mutation Diary No. 626, the statement given by the petitioner that he is cultivating the said land, has got no substance in view of the fact that, the land in question has been vested in the Government. The inamdar has no power to lease out the said land once the land has been vested in the Government. The said finding given by the Land Tribunal is well-considered one for the reason that, the land in question is vested in the Government as per Diary No. 626 and the landowner inamdar has no power to lease out the land to the petitioners when once it is vested in the Government. Hence, when the land in question is vested in the Government, as per the mutation Diary No. 626, the question of certifying the Mutation Diary No. 853 in favour of the petitioners does not arise. The petitioners have not produced any lease deed or any agreement before the Tribunal in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to them and have failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Nor the petitioners have made out any good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Land Tribunal, at this stage.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed.