:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 19th Day of November 2011 Present THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS AD THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL. No. 78 / 2008 BETWEEN: Basavanth Sb Late Nana Ningappa Yallarkar, Aged about 65 years. Occ:Agriculture, R/o Navigalli, Halaga Village, Belgaum Dist. 2. Mallappa 5/0 Late Nana Ningappa Yallarkar, Aged about 60 years, Occ:agriculture, R/o Navigalli, Halaga Village, Belgaum Taluk and Dist. .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANJAYS.KAT-\Gi.RI. ADVO( A I.) AND The State of Karnataka by its Secretary to Government. Revenue Department, M. S.Building, Bangalore- 1. :2: 2. The Land Tribunal, Belgaum by its Secretary, The Tahsildar, Belgaum 3. Shambaji Jeevappa Garade Age: Major, Occ:service, deceased by his irs. 3(a) Smt. Laxmibai W/o Sambaji Garade, Age: 40 yrs, 0cc: Househodi. 3(b) Kunal Soumya W/o Sambaji Garade, Age: 40 yrs, 0cc: Househodi. 3(c) Sandeep S/o Sambaji Garade, Age: 35 yrs, 0cc: Business. 3(d) Rajana W/o Sambaji Garade, Age: 30 yrs, 0cc: Househodi. All are Ananthashavana Galli, Belgaum-590 002. 4. Rajesh Jeevappa Garade Age: major, Occ:service 5. Sulochana W/o Prakash Garade, Age: Major, 0cc: Household. 6. Sachin S/o Prakash Garade, Age major, Occ:agricuiture 7. Sagar Sb Prakash Garade, Age Major, Occ:Agriculture, :3 3 to 7 are R/O H.No.1117, Ananthashayana Gaili. Belgaum-590 002. 8. Rukmini d/o late Durgappa Bilgoji, Age: 45 years, Occ:Household. 9. Rama s/o Late Durgappa Bilgoji, Aged about 43 years, 0CC :Agriculture, 10. Jaja s/o Late Durgappa Bilgoji, Aged about 42 years, Occ:Agriculture, 11. Bikku s/o Late Durgappa Bi1goi. Aged about 39 years Occ:Agriculture 12. Savitri d/o Late Durgappa Bilgoji, Aged about 35 years, Oc;Househo1d, 13. Mangala D/o Late Durgappa Bilgoji, Age: Major, Occ:Household 8 to 13 Are r/o Halaga Village Belgaum Dist. RESPONDENTS (By Sri Mahesh Wodevar, ACA for RI and R2, Sri. Sunil S. Desai for Neelendra Gunde, Advo ‘ate for R8-R13, Sri. Vittal S. Feb. Advocate for R5 to R7. R3A-D Served, This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to allow the top noted appea’ by setting aside the order under Appeal :4: dated: 1L03.2008 passed in W.P 28910/2003 and WP289 10/2003. This appeal coming on for further hearing this day, H.N.Nagamohan Das. J. delivered the following: JUDGMENT This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1 ith March 2008 in WP No.28910/2003. 2. Appellants and respondent Nos. 8 to 13 are the rival claimants before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights to an extent of 7 guntas in survey No.360/ 1A situated at Halaga village, Beigaum taluk. 3. In the first round of litigation the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of the appellants and the same came to be reversed by this court and remanded the matter for reconsideration. On remand, the Land Tribunal recorded the evidence and on appreciation of the evidence of record, granted occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 13. Aggrieved by this order of the Land Tribunal dated :5: 09/04/2003, the appellant approached this court in WP No.28910/03. Learned single Judge of this Court on appreciation of the entire material on record held that, Tribunal has not committed any illegality in granting occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 13. Accordingly, under the impugned order, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. We heard the augments on both side and perused the entire writ papers. 5. According to the appellants, the land in question originally belongs to one Jeevappa Garade. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and deceased Prakash are the three sons of Jeevappa. In a family partition the land in question had fallen to the share of Prakash and the appellants were tenants under him. In support of this contention, no evidence is placed on record. The appellants have miserably failed to prove and establish r :6: that, the land in question had fallen to the share of Prakash. 6. After remand from this court the appellants have not examined their landlord Prakash and on his demise, his children were also not examined. The RTC extract do not specify the name of either the appellants nor rival claimants, But the two Sons ol original owner i.e. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 deposed before the Tribunal stating that respondent Nos. 8 to 13 are their tenants, they have issued the rent receipts and to granting occupancy rights in their favour. In the circumstances, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 13. By considering the material on record, the learned Single Judge of this Court confirmed the order of Land Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. We find no justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 7. However, at this stage and with an intention to put an end to the litigation, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8 to 13 filed a memo restraining their claim for 12 guntas out of 17 guntas. It is further stated in the memo that respondent Nos, 8 to 13 have no objection for the appellants in this appeal to continue in possession of 5 gunts of land out of 17 guntas in survey No.360/ 1A. We do not suspect the bonafides of the respondent Nos,8 to 13 in filing his memo. The memo is taken on record, In the circumstances, the order of the Land Tribunal dated 09/04/2003 requires modification. For the reasons stated above, following: ORDER (i) Writ appeal is hereby disposed of, (ii) The order of the Land Tribunal dated 09/04’2O03 in case NoSR 179-86A is hereby modified, confirming the occupancy right to an extent of 12 oI_ :8 guntas in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 13 and the remaining 5 gunts in favour of the appellants herein in survey No.360/ 1A of Halaga village, Belgaum taluk, (iii) Ordered accordir 1 gh. Sd! TUDGE Sd/ JtJDGE