ORDER
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. Settlement not reported. Hence, the Court proceeds to dictate the order on merits of the case.
2. The Legal Representatives of deceased petitioner have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order at Annexure-B, dated 17-5-2003 passed by the 2nd respondent Land Tribunal rejecting the application seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of 3.08 acres of land in Sy. No. 26 of Managuthi village and granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3(a) to (f) and 4 to 6 to the entire extent of 6-16 acres in the same land.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, prima facie in my view the Land Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned order granting occupancy rights to the entire extent to respondents 3 to 6 and rejecting the claim of petitioners’ father. The reasons for my conclusion are as under.–
(i) The petitioner’s father filed suit in O.S. No. 29 of 1971 against respondents 3 and 6 seeking permanent injunction alleging that the defendants in the suit attempted; to interfere with his possession of the land as tenant. Rent Receipts Exhibits P. 7 to P. 15 and Money Order Receipts Exs. P. 16 to P. 21. They pertain to the period 1964 to 1968. The same had not been disputed by any of the parties. Ex. P. 4 was the extract of Record of Rights for the years 1952-53 to 1960-61. In that, the names of father of deceased petitioner and also the father of defendants 3(a) to (f) and 6, who were the defendants in the suit, is entered as tenants. It is thus clear the tenancy of the petitioner was from the year 1952-53 itself.
(ii) Ex. P. 2 was the R.R. extract pertaining to 1969-70 and 1970-71, in which the name of the deceased petitioner had been deleted on the basis the order dated 12-5-1970 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. In the judgment at Annexure-A it is categorically held that the same had been done behind the back of the petitioner. Hence, those entries in favour of respondents 3(a) to (f) and 6 are not valid and no value can be attached to them. The Land Tribunal wrongly granted occupancy rights on the basis of those entries in the RTC record in favour of respondents 3(a) to (f) and 4 to 6.
(iii) It is nobody’s case that the deceased petitioner gave-up cultivation of the land or surrendered his tenancy rights in respect of the land is question. In the absence of valid surrender of the land in question in accordance with law to the landlord, it cannot be held that the tenancy rights of deceased petitioner came to an end after 1969-70. The Land Tribunal failed to consider the above important aspects of the case in a proper perspective and has passed the impugned order without proper application of mind.
(iv) From paragraph 8 of the judgment in O.S. No. 29 of 1971, copy of which is produced as Annexure-A, it is seen that the landlord had filed suit in O.S. No. 92 of 1954 before the erstwhile Land Tribunal for recovery of rent from two tenants-deceased petitioner and another. The filing of suit for recovery of rent ipso facto proves the tenancy of the deceased petitioner in respect of the land in question. The documents produced before the Land Tribunal by the petitioners clearly proved continuance of tenancy of the deceased petitioner in respect of the land in question. There is no document to show that the tenancy of the deceased petitioner came to an end or surrendered in respect of the land in question after following the mandatory provisions as provided under the original Section 25 of the KLR Act read with repealed provisions of Sections 14 and 16 of the Act. The only document relied upon by the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3(a) to (f) to 6 is the RTC extract standing in their names after 1969-70. The entries therein had been made without notice to the deceased petitioner as required under the provision of Section 129 read with Rule 65 of the KLR Act, 1964 and based on the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the change of RTC entries from the name of the deceased petitioner at his back and therefore no importance could have been attached to the same and recorded the finding by the Tribunal in answer to the tenancy issue in respect of the land in question and without legal evidence in favour of the petitioners and not assigning valid reasons for not considering the same, thereby the impugned order is vitiated in law.
(v) The documents produced in the two original suits disclose that deceased petitioner and respondents 3(a) to (f) to 6 were joint tenants of the land in question. The tenancy of the land in question came into existence during the lifetime of their fathers and after their death the tenancy continued in respect of the land in question. Such being the case, the Land Tribunal has wrongly granted occupancy rights to the entire extent of land in favour of respondents 3 (a) to (f) to 6 ignoring the tenancy right of the deceased petitioner.
(vi) The landlord admitted the tenancy of the deceased petitioner in the civil suit O.S. No. 95 of 1954. If petitioner was not the tenant of the land in question, the landlord would not have filed the suit against him for recovery of rent in respect of the land in question,
(vii) The total extent of the land is 6-16 acres. The tenancy claim of the petitioner was only to half portion, viz., 3-08 acres. The suit filed by the deceased petitioner in O.S. No. 29 of 1971 against respondents 3 and 6 who were the defendants for permanent injunction in respect of the land in question is a clear indication of the fact that they attempted to interfere with the possession of the deceased petitioner in respect of the land in question after getting their names entered in the RTC without notice to him. It is pertinent to note that the name of the deceased petitioner was not entered in the RTC for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The suit was filed for injunction in the year 1971. The suit was decreed against respondents 3 and 6. From this it is crystal clear that respondents 3 to 6 were not in possession of the entire extent of land. Therefore, the grant of occupancy in their favour for the entire extent is bad in law and the impugned order of the Land Tribunal has to be modified by this Court.
4. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Land Tribunal is quashed only in so far it relates to grant of occupancy rights beyond 3-08 acres in favour of respondents 3(a) to (f) to 6 and rejection of the claim of the deceased petitioner. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified rejecting the claim of respondents 3(a) to (f) to 6 to half portion. The application of the deceased petitioner is allowed and occupancy right is granted in favour of the petitioners to half extent, namely 3-08 acres as claimed in Form No. 7 application. Occupancy Certificates shall be granted accordingly in favour of the petitioners within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.