-1-
mm was HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT
nnmnn mars THE 1a"'nAx or mgficg 290$ '
BETWEEN: _ ' "W
1. rnxxznavfigg' u 2" g ,V .V
wve R£MAE2A MALLAMgAu;vAa2A~
67 ¥£AR$a"'e, .f* * *._ 5
efisgwcaa IE was 55:52 ;?'s£mw""mwA
R/9 NAaaxAna§ca*.
saiaanefi fiLvK.'* '
HAVERI nIsTRIcT °2L""
2;'HANfiMAwWm
_"ROM RAMAPEh«fiANIGERA
_ "57'YEAR$
. -.AGRiCUL5-"RE
,-Hxgggggafiuuz
=KUNDAGOL@TALUK
K,nnA£man9n1smR:cm
{By $ri.R K H ASSGCIAEES, %dvs.}
1. MUDUKAPRA DUNDAPPA BHAVIKAETI
67 YEARS
AGRICULTURE
HALEBANKAPURA, SHIGGON TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
HI'-'l'1'fl.fl1(\IL'l
Inlildu TIOCIWFHI
32 ITS szcnamaar -=W'~. , ,. to ._, . _
Haven: ezswazcw. ; '}VE t_'hRES?0fib'§T5.
(Ev §ri.R SRi§fiRR HIEEMATH; Asa ro3¥a§1 Ann 2!"e
mars warm A99mA:"£S»rILzn,fi§n§Rzsmorxon 4 or
THE KARNAEAKA HIGH cops? 53: pnnxxxo $0 $3! ASIDE
ram onnan pnssanxInrwHm»w3:m_Pnw:wIoN No.73/2003
DATED 16.8.200'7;_stexs of first respondent Mr.Mu.d'uJcappa, who
h”«gnai1§n§ea the order of the land tribunal so far
test Aiejeevtion of his c.J.a.1.m’ to a portion of the
J,ei*z;1.theasur1ng 10 acres 20 guntas in sy.No.42 of
A’ ‘ ._I-!aV.’LebunJcapura Village, Shiggaon Taluk, Haven.
“fi1atrict.
-3-
3. The brief facts of the case eh
‘.9-I-I:lV-t|,I
‘ne ” tear Vhhreferring ‘ V he
the details whgoh «.A~we:§;s.;oz in the
enquiry, grante<¥'#1_e_2' 'aoirea in favour of
reapondeh.t::"Ho.1 guntaa in favour
of the-«" order came to be
queati_oi1e6. 1 before this court
ih we h§r?3[rOQ3;Tahmoording to him, he and his
father »got"= £he..':§ro1oerties divided in the year
4;9e5 aed"the:ehtire extent of 22 acres 20 guntas
share ,.
4 . The learned single Judge after referring
V’ iio the records of the land tribunal came to a
conclusion that in respect of the land in
r1
1:. iron #353 om:a.,rd_.;
question ,.
thefieg§e;;an£;ugé,
-4-
the entries in the REC the -.o’f.–_ t’he
f’1′-st respondent as the Weu1t1.*.ratcr’_’v
presumptive value and that 3 ,. –:
the said lands were ,eu;t1vé-ted lny .
who have also filed £er£n_V”hIeV.7.V” regard he
referred to a 1. court the ease
of Beerappa Land Tribunal
reporteq. t 512 where the
presun§$tttve” revenue entries as
u.n«5a4*§§-Vtst-d’;’i3§ or the Kerneteltae Lend.
Revenue A¢t’:Vfvzes»e. ;n .e e-n.e.*.d..r..tien.
5} omit” contention of the appellants
theirttt ‘father was the tenant and therefore
V “eglso entitled for a share in the land
that taken into consideration by the learner;
“S.*Ln1g:.I..ev Judge. He also took note 1;: -he £3″-et t..at
” °”.’!,n the year ;9s._ itselfi in t..e pat-t.tt1–. the
e share of first respondent
herein. iu’:’i:er referring to a judgment of this
-5-
coiirt in the case of iniiinwn ANT: Qfi-iE’i§S–.
TRIBUNAL, GOKAK AND otuumnsyy;-epq:£sa1:’_2.6’oV3y(4; gtécfi”
sn 356,. the learned ain:<;gle:_-~'::F;$dg"e._1held"Vft:hat;_*Athe"~. 5
tribunal has no juriadiction the
tenancy rights .
6. H””ii’1§’ ‘facts and the law
laid downfas .-,st’ate:d this court, the
learned. in rejecting the
conytentiyonlfiipor ~ that they are
entitl’od7.f.?F .a_£1 their father was a tenant
t_h”o_ :_4’ri:§h”ts could be inherited by all
the leléaliy representatives .
rejection of occupancy rights in
=”_;§a;s’.;1¢g 10 Acres 20 guntaa alone was
“”‘que._£itio’ned and the same was considered by the
.. leaaz-ned single Judge with reference to the
” glfudgments of this court that there cannot be
partition of tenancy rights and ultimately the
matter was remanded to the tribunal to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
8. The learned counsel… oj¢jca:ée::’$_’ to 4]
of this court in the.caae of CHALEA fihfififlrhfihlbfl
vs. same or mpostafiniiggg 2001 ‘KL:
455. The hes not done
anything against the lek_lei§Ionwn by this court
in the§..gg§§_ V’ to set aside the
order . ‘tril5un:e§lV:”V.:ygranting or partitioning
tire». riehtsft, had referred to certain
laid down by this court and
l-
to proceed .. ‘§a’s$ order
on.’ the grant of occupancy i:”iG”‘1:B so far a
%.Are§ection of claim of the first respondent to an
esgétenitt of 10 acres 20 guntas is concerned.
therefore we do not find. any good ground to
interfere with the orders passed by the learned
\<3
single Judge as the appellants are also liable to
show how they are legally entitled to get
– 7 .
occupancy rights in their favour__j”i:E’uwhat