Karnataka High Court
Sri Vasu Poojary S/O Dogu Poojary vs The Land Tribunal Mangalore on 8 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A.No.1134/2012(LR)
C/W
W.P.No.50676/2017 (LR-RES)
IN W.A. NO.1134/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VASU POOJARY
S/O DOGU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NEKKILADI HOUSE
PADUPERARA VILLAGE
& POST, VIA BAJPE
MANGALORE
DISTRICT - 574 142.
2. SRI LINGU POOJARY
S/O DOOMA POOJARY
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
2A. SMT. PADMAVATHI
W/O MAHABALA AND
D/O LINGU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2B. SRI PRABHAKAR
S/O LINGU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
2C. SRI. BHAVANI SHANKAR
S/O LINGU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2
2D. SMT. REVATHI
W/O RAJEEV AND
D/O LINGU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
2E. SMT. JAYANTHI
W/O HOOVAYYA AND
D/O LINGU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2F. SMT. BABI
W/O KESHAVA AND
D/O LINGU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2G. SMT. YAMINI
W/O HEMACHANDRA AND
D/O LINGU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
2H. SMT. SHARMILA
W/O SADASHIVA AND
D/O LINGU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT NEKKILADI HOUSE
PADUPERARA VILLAGE AND POST
VIA BAJPE, MANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MANGALORE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN, TALUKA MANGALORE
DISTRICT, D.K.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. SRI RAGHAVA KOTIAN
SINCE DECEASED
REPRESENTED BY HIS LR
3
3A) SMT. YAMUNA
W/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
3B) SHIVANANDA
S/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
3C) ROSA RAMANI
D/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3D) HARINAKSHI
D/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3E) VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3F) BALAKRISHNA
S/O YAMUNA
S/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
3G) RAJA
S/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
3H) LOLAKSHI
D/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
3I) SMT. SUMITHRA
D/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NIKKILADI HOUSE
PADUPERA POST & VILLAGE
BAJPE, MANGALORE 574 142.
4. SRI BABU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O SADASHIVA SHETTY
R/A GOLIDADI, PADUPERAR
4
VILLAGE,TALUKA, MANGALORE
DISTRICT D.K. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KETHAN KUMAR, ADV., FOR R-3(A-I);
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI I. THRANATH POOJARY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VEENA T.N., ADV., FOR LR'S OF R-3;
R-4 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.4631/2006 DATED
30/11/2011.
IN W.P. NO.50676/2017:
BETWEEN:
VASU POOJARY
S/O DOGU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NEKKILADI HOUSE
PADUPERAR VILALGE & POST,
VIA BAJPE, MANGALORE4
D.K. DISTRICT 574 142. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
MANGALURU TALUK
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
TALUKIA MANGALURU
DISTRICT D.K.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR
ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. SRI. RAGHAVA KOTIAN
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
3A) SMT. YAMUNA
W/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
5
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
3B) SHIVANANDA
S/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
3C) ROSA RAMANI
D/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3D) HARINAKSHI
D/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3E) VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3F) BALAKRISHNA
S/O YAMUNA
S/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
3G) RAJA
S/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
3H) LOLAKSHI
D/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
3I) SMT. SUMITHRA
D/O RAGHAVA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NIKKILADI HOUSE
PADUPERA POST & VILLAGE
BAJPE, MANGALORE 574 142.
4. SRI BABU SHETTY
@ JAGDISH SHETTY
S/O SADASHIVA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A GOLIDADI, PADUPERAR
VILLAGE,TALUKA MANGALORE
DISTRICT D.K. - 574 142. ...RESPONDENTS
6
(BY SRI UDAYA PRAKSAH MULIYA, ADV., FOR R-3(A-I);
SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VEENA T.N., ADV., FOR R-3(A TO F) & R-3 (H & I)
REP. BY GPA HOLDER; R-4 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2016 PASSED BY THE LAND
TRIBUNAL, MANGALURU AT ANEX-B AND ETC.
THESE APPEAL AND PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESEVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The dispute involved in the above captioned writ
appeal and the writ petition are interconnected and are
between the same parties, and therefore, with the
consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the
parties, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of
by this common judgment.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
parties and also perused the material available on record.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the
records that may be necessary for disposal of these cases
are, the contesting private parties in these two cases are
rival claimants in respect of below mentioned six items of
lands situated at Nikkiladi of Padu Perara village,
Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District.
Sy. No. Extent in acres
210/1B 3.53
61/2B 0.90
88 1.00
61/5 0.11
65/17A 0.25
65/3B 1.47
Total 7.63
4. The contesting private respondents are members
of a joint family, of which, Smt. Uggani Hengsu is the
propositor. The genealogy of the joint family under Smt.
Uggani Hengsu reads as under:
UGGANU HENGSU
Dogu Poojary Achu Subbu
Balu Sapalinga Lingu Poojary Gowri
Ponkra
Gangadhar Nonayya Thokkuru Kalyani Pushpa Vasu
Kukyan Poojary = Lingu [1990] [Died] Poojary
(Died) (Died- Poojary [no [Applt-
1991) (1992) heir] No.1]
Raghava
Kotian
[R-3]
5. It appears that Smt. Uggani Hengsu was the
tenant of large extent of lands in Nikkiladi of Padu Perara
village, Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, and
the landlords had also executed Chalageni Deed in her
favour and after her death, Dogu Poojary being her
eldest son had continued the tenancy on behalf of the
joint family and subsequently there was a family
arrangement and the tenanted lands were handed over
for the purpose of cultivation to the other members of
the joint family also. After coming into force of the
Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act No.1 of 1974,
Dogu Poojary and his two sons viz., Nonaiah Poojary and
Vasu Poojary had filed a joint Form No.7 claiming
occupancy rights of 13 items of lands under two different
landlords viz., Maire Hengsu and Ashabi. Respondent
no.3 - Raghava Kotian who is the great grandson of Smt.
Uggani Hengsu also had filed Form No.7 claiming 16
items of land under the aforesaid landlords. Similarly,
Balu Poojary and Lingu Poojary who are the grandsons of
Smt. Uggani Hengsu had also filed two separate Form
No.7 claiming occupancy rights of the lands mentioned in
their respective Form No.7.
6. The Land Tribunal had clubbed all the aforesaid
four Form No.7 and vide order dated 31.03.1992 had
granted occupancy rights of the lands measuring 16
acres 97 cents to Dogu Poojary and his sons in
proceedings No.LRT.26/1976-77 and had granted 9 acres
53 cents of land to Raghava Kotian in proceedings
No.LRT.927/1975-76. The claims of Balu Poojary in
proceedings No.LRT.4306/1979-80 and Lingu Poojary in
proceedings No.LRT.27/1976-77 were rejected. The order
dated 31.03.1992 in so far as it related to granting
occupancy rights of the disputed six items of lands was
challenged by Dogu Poojary and appellant nos.1 & 2
before this Court in W.P.No.23932-933/1992 and the
learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the said
writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Land
Tribunal in No.LRT.927/1975-76 in so far as it relates to
granting occupancy rights of the aforesaid disputed six
items of lands in favour of respondent no.3 - Raghava
Kotiyan and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The order of the Land Tribunal in so far as it relates to
granting occupancy rights to Dogu Poojary and his sons
and to Raghava Kotiyan in respect of other items of land
except the aforesaid disputed six items of lands stood
unalterated, and thereby, it has reached finality.
7. After remand, the Land Tribunal, once again by
order dated 13.01.2006 granted occupancy rights of the
disputed six items of lands to respondent no.3 - Raghava
Kotiyan and as against the said order, appellant nos.1 &
2 herein had preferred W.P.No.4631/2006 while one Smt.
Shambavi Malli claiming to be the landlord of the land
bearing Sy. No.88 measuring 1 acre 29 cents had filed
W.P.No.21076/2010 challenging the order dated
13.01.2006 only in so far as it relates to grant of
occupancy rights of land bearing Sy. No.88. The learned
Single Judge vide the order impugned dated 30.11.2011
had dismissed W.P.No.4361/2006 and allowed
W.P.No.21076/2010 in part and remitted the matter to
the Land Tribunal to consider Form No.7 of respondent
no.3 - Raghava Kotiyan afresh only in respect of the land
bearing Sy. No.88 and the rest of the order passed by
the Land Tribunal in respect of other lands stood
confirmed. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.4361/2006, the
petitioners in the said writ petition have preferred
W.A.No.1134/2012.
8. Smt. Shambavi Malli had filed
W.P.No.21076/2010 specifically contending that there
was no Form No.7 filed by respondent no.3 - Raghava
Kotiyan in respect of Sy. No.88, and therefore, the
learned Single Judge while remanding had observed that
the Land Tribunal shall verify and ascertain whether
there is a claim made by respondent no.3 in respect of
Sy. No.88 in Form No.7. If there is no claim in respect of
Sy. No.88, it shall examine the matter and ascertain
whether the respondent was a tenant as on the date of
vesting i.e., 01.03.1974.
9. The Land Tribunal after the order of remand in
W.P.No.21076/2010, had held an enquiry as directed by
this Court and once again by order dated 03.08.2016 has
granted occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No.88 in
favour of respondent no.3 and challenging the same,
appellant no.1 - Vasu Poojary has filed
W.P.No.50676/2017.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in
the writ appeal and for the petitioner in the writ petition
submits that the lands in dispute along with the other
items of land were taken on lease by Dogu Poojary and
the said lands were never leased to respondent no.3 -
Raghava Kotiyan nor was he in occupation and cultivation
of the said lands as a tenant. He submits that the Land
Tribunal has committed an error in relying upon the
alleged statement of the landlord as the said statement
cannot be looked into because the same is not recorded
in accordance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules'). He submits
that Dogu Poojary had taken the lands in dispute on
lease which is evident from the geni chit produced by him
and there is no evidence of surrender of the said land to
the landlord and in view of Section 21 of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), respondent
no.3 cannot be considered as a tenant. He refers to the
depositions in the civil proceedings and criminal
proceedings which were recorded prior to the Land
Tribunal considering Form No.7 filed by the rival
claimants and submits that Dogu Poojary and his family
members were alone the tenants of the lands in question
and not Raghava Kotiyan. He submits that Raghava
Kotiyan had not even claimed Sy. No.88 in his original
Form No.7, and subsequently, he has inserted a separate
Form No.7 which involves the claim in respect of Sy.
No.88. He also submits that the rent receipts available on
record would go to show that Dogu Poojary and his sons
were the tenants of the lands in dispute and not Raghava
Kotiyan. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon
the following five judgments:
(i) DAVALSAB VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR
2008 KAR 280.
(ii) STATE OF KARNATAKA VS UPPEGOUDA -
1997(3) SCC 593.
(iii) RAMACHANDRA KESHAV ADKE VS GOVIND
JOTI CHAVARE - AIR 1975 SC 915.
(iv) THUNGA BAI VS VISHALAKHSI HEGGADTHI -
1974(2) KANTLJ 484.
(v) BABU YALLAPPA SANADI VS LAND TRIBUNAL,
BELGAUM - ILR 2000 KAR 2872.
11. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for respondent no.3 submits that the Land Tribunal has
granted occupancy rights of 16 acres 97 cents to Dogu
Poojary and his sons, while it has granted only 9 acres 53
cents to respondent no.3. He submits that the survey
report which is available on record, on which the Land
Tribunal has placed reliance for the purpose of granting
occupancy rights to respondent no.3 would clearly go to
show that respondent no.3 was in occupation and
cultivation of the lands in dispute as on 01.03.1974 and
even the landlord of the property has admitted the same.
He also placed reliance on the affidavit of Ibrahim who is
the husband of the landlord Smt. Ashabi and the
statement of Dogu Poojary which were recorded in a civil
and criminal proceedings, respectively, much prior to the
Land Tribunal initially deciding the claim of the rival
claimants and submits that the said documents which are
at Annexures-R5 & R6 to the statement of objections
would clearly got to show that respondent no.3 -
Raghava Kotiyan was in occupation and cultivation of the
lands in question as on 01.03.1974 and immediately prior
to that. He submits that the order of remand passed by
this Court in W.P.No.21076/2010 had directed the Land
Tribunal to consider only the Form No.7 filed by
respondent no.3 in respect of Sy. No.88 and the learned
Single Judge by a common order dated 03.11.2011
passed in the said writ petition has dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellants herein, and thereafter, the
Land Tribunal has now once again granted the occupancy
rights in respect of Sy. No.88 in favour of respondent
no.3 which has not been questioned by the landlord Smt.
Shambavi Malli who was the petitioner in
W.P.No.21076/2010, and therefore, it is not open for
appellant no.1 - Vasu Poojary to challenge the said order
dated 03.08.2016 under which the occupancy rights of
Sy. No.88 is now granted to respondent no.3. He submits
that unless the appellants succeed in W.A.No.1134/2012,
they have no right to challenge the order dated
03.08.2016 passed by the Land Tribunal granting
occupancy rights of the land bearing Sy. No.88 in favour
of respondent no.3. In support of his arguments, he has
relied upon the following judgments.
(i) RAMAPPA MALLAPPA KARANNAVAR - 1973 MYS
385.
(ii) SANGAPPA KALYANAPPA BANGI (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. VS LAND TRIBUNAL, JAMKHANDI &
OTHERS - (1998)7 SCC 294.
12. Learned Additional Government Advocate has
argued in support of the impugned orders and has
prayed to dismiss the writ appeal as well as the writ
petition.
13. We have given our anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed, perused the material on record
and the judgments on which reliance has been placed by
the learned Counsel for the parties.
14. The Land Tribunal which is a fact finding
authority has granted occupancy rights of the lands in
dispute in favour of respondent no.3 on multiple
occasions considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record. It is not in dispute that the rival
claimants are members of the joint family and they claim
under Smt. Uggani Hengsu who had initially taken the
lands in question on lease along with other items of land,
of which, occupancy rights have been already granted to
the rival claimants.
15. The material on record would also go to show
that after the death of the original tenant, her eldest son
- Dogu Poojary had continued the tenancy on behalf of
the joint family, and subsequently, the tenanted lands
were allotted to the members of different kavaru claiming
under Smt. Uggani Hengsu and the members of the
respective kavaru independently were in occupation and
cultivation of the lands which were allotted to them. This
aspect can be gathered from the affidavit of the husband
of the landlord Smt. Ashabi and the statement of Dogu
Poojary as per Annexure-R6 to the statement of
objections which was recorded much prior to the dispute
which arose between the rival claimants after they filed
Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal. The statement of
the respective landlords corroborates the aforesaid
statements, and therefore, though the said statements
are not recorded strictly in accordance with Rule 17 of
the Rules, they cannot be completely ignored.
16. In addition to the same, the Land Tribunal,
while initially deciding the rival claims, had obtained a
survey report which is dated 21.07.1977. From a perusal
of the said document, it is seen that the lands which
were claimed by the legal representative of appellant
no.2 in his Form No.7 were found to be in occupation of
respondent no.3 - Raghava Kotian. The Land Tribunal
which is a fact finding authority, based on the said survey
report and also considering the statements/depositions
which were recorded in different criminal and civil
proceedings much prior to the Land Tribunal initially
deciding the claims made by the rival claimants, has
given a finding that respondent no.3 - Raghava Kotian
was found in occupation and cultivation of the disputed
six items of land, and accordingly, had granted
occupancy rights of the said lands in his favour.
17. The Land Tribunal while considering a claim in
Form No.7 is required to consider and appreciate as to
whether the claimant was in occupation and cultivation of
the lands which are the subject matter of Form No.7 as
on 01.03.1974. The survey report as well as other
documents on which reliance has been placed by the
Land Tribunal, prima facie go to show that respondent
no.3 - Raghava Kotian was in possession and cultivation
of the lands in question as on 01.03.1974, and
accordingly, the Land Tribunal has proceeded to grant
the occupancy rights of the land in question to
respondent no.3 even in the second round of litigation.
18. On the other hand, the appellants have not
placed any satisfactory material to show that as on
01.03.1974, they were in occupation and cultivation of
the lands in question. The statement of Dogu Poojary
who was a claimant alongwith the appellant herein which
is available at Annexure-R6 itself would go to show that
respondent no.3 was given certain items of property
much prior to the filing of Form No.7 and this aspect is
also evident from the affidavit dated 10.04.1975 of
Sheikh Ibrahim, husband of Smt. Ashabi which he had
filed in O.S.No.153/1975.
19. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied
upon Section 21 of the Act and has contended that since
there is no material to show that the original tenant -
Dogu Poojary surrendered the land to the landlord, the
tenancy of respondent no.3 who allegedly is in
occupation and cultivation of the lands in question under
a family arrangement cannot be considered. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi's case
supra in paragraph 6 has held as under:
"6. If we bear in mind the purpose behind
Section 21, it becomes clear that the object of the
law is not to allow strangers to the family of the
tenant to come upon the land. The tenanted land is
not allowed to be sub-let, i.e., to pass to the hands
of a stranger nor any kind of assignment taking
place in respect of the lease held. If the tenant
could assign his interest, strangers can come upon
the land, and therefore, the expression
"assignment" will have to be given such meaning
as to promote the object of the enactment.
Therefore, the deceased tenant can assign his
rights only to the heirs noticed in the provision and
such heirs could only be the spouse or any
descendants or one who is related to the deceased
tenant by legitimate kinship. We must take into
consideration that when it is possible for the tenant
to pass the property to those who may not
necessarily be the heirs under the ordinary law and
who become heirs only by reason of a bequest
under a Will in which event, he would be a stranger
to the family and imported on the land thus to the
detriment of the landlord. In that event, it must be
taken that a devise under a Will will also amount to
an assignment and, therefore, be not valid for the
purpose of Section 21 of the Act. If Section 24 is
read along with Section 21, it would only mean that
the land can pass by succession to the heirs of a
deceased tenant, but subject to the conditions
prescribed in Section 21 of the Act. Therefore, we
are of the view that the broad statement made by
the High Court in the two decisions in Shivanna and
Dhareppa v. State of Karnataka would not
promote the object and purpose of the law.
Therefore, the better view appears to us is as
stated by the High Court in Timmakka Kom
Venkanna Naik v. Land Tribunal."
20. In the present case, the rival claimants are
close relatives and they are the members of a joint family
and they claim under the original tenant Smt. Uggani
Hengsu. Therefore, after the death of the original tenant
or the senior most member of the family, if certain items
of tenanted lands have come under the possession and
cultivation of a member of the family in a family
arrangement, such an arrangement or his possession and
cultivation cannot be said to be not valid in view of the
pronouncement made in Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi's
case supra.
21. It is nobody's case that the lands which were
taken on lease by the propositor of the joint family was
surrendered at any point of time to the landlord, and
thereafter, the same was taken on lease by respondent
no.3. Therefore, the judgments in Uppegowda's case
supra and Thunga Bai's case supra relied upon by the
learned Counsel for the appellants cannot be made
applicable to the facts of the present case. It is trite law
that rent receipts alone cannot be relied upon for the
purpose of deciding the tenancy of the lands in dispute
and the same is required to be considered along with
other material evidence available on record. In the
present case, though there are no rent receipts standing
in the name of respondent no.3, the other documents
which are referred to herein above, prima facie show that
respondent no.3 was in occupation and cultivation of the
lands in question as on 01.03.1974 and immediately prior
to the said date.
22. The material on record would go to show that
in Form No.7 dated 09.11.1975, respondent no.3 has
made a claim in respect of all the six items of lands
under two different landlords, and therefore, the
judgment in Davalsab's case supra would also not be of
any aid to the appellants. The judgments in Ramchandra
Keshav Adke's case supra and Babu Yallappa Sanadi's
case supra are also not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case and it is trite law that
the judgments can be relied upon as precedents only if
the same can be made applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand. Under the
circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ
appeal filed by the appellants challenging the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.4361/2006.
23. In so far as W.P.No.50676/2017 is concerned,
since we have already upheld the order of the learned
Single Judge passed in W.P.No.4361/2006 wherein the
learned Single Judge had affirmed the order of the Land
Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellants in respect of
six items of lands in dispute, the appellants who are the
rival claimants in respect of the said lands cannot
maintain the writ petition. Their claim in respect of Sy.
No.88 which is the subject matter in W.P.No.50676/2017
has been already closed in W.P.No.4361/2006 and the
said order passed in W.P.No.4361/2006 has been
affirmed by us in W.A.No.1134/2012.
24. Further, W.P.No.21076/2010 was filed by
Shambavi Malli who claimed to be the landlord of Sy.
No.88 and it is at her instance, the earlier order of the
Land Tribunal was set aside by this Court while disposing
of W.P.No.21076/2010 and W.P.No.4361/2006 by a
common order and the learned Single Judge has remitted
the matter to the Land Tribunal with a direction only to
consider the Form No.7 of respondent no.3 in respect of
Sy. No.88, while the claim in respect of the said land by
the appellants was rejected by the learned Single Judge.
25. The order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the
Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights of the land
bearing Sy. No.88 in favour of respondent no.3
consecutively for the third time has not been challenged
by the landlord - Smt. Shambavi Malli, whereas the
challenge to the said order is only by Vasu Poojary -
appellant no.1 in W.A.No.1134/2012 whose claim in
respect of the said land has been already rejected in
W.P.No.4361/2006. Under the circumstances, we do not
find any merit even in W.P.No.50676/2017, wherein the
challenge is laid to the order passed by the Land Tribunal
granting occupancy rights of Sy. No.88 of Nikkiladi of
Padu Perara village in favour of respondent no.3 which is
one of survey number in the disputed six items of land.
Under the circumstances, we do no find any merit even
in this writ petition. Accordingly, the following order:
26. Writ appeal and the writ petition are dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
KK
