IN THE HISH U.URT OF KARN•ATAKA. AT BANGALORE H-ilu iih ih IJHY ur ur4 THE HUN SUE MR JUST ICE F SALDANHA. W. P No, 25101/1996 br Narayana Baramanna Path, since deceased, by his LFs 1. Sri Dattatreya Naraysna Fat i I 2 S i iaa Naravana Paril Sri Rajendra Narayana PatH PETITIONERS all are majors and sons of late Narsyana Baramanna Patii all are riat Fadoli village, Belgaum Taluk Belgaum Dist ri h vasanto, -iov 1, The State of karnata:a reps by its Secretary dept Df Revenue Yidhana Soudna Ban o a lore 2 The Land Tribunal Belaum, rep by ts Chairean Sri Dhenu Chatru Dhanagar 4. rt ayappa Lhasru Lnanagar 5 Sri Yasir Chatru Dhanagar b Sr MaIiaDpa do 2 B. Sri Shivai Chatru Dnaar 9. Sri Pau cnatru Dhanagar respte No 3 to 9 are majors ens all are eons of c-hatru Ohanac4ar all are r/atJKadoii Beicjaum Taiuk% Belgaum Dist RESPONDENTS (Sri SV Jagannath, AddiGA for F1 & R2) S. Urnesh, idv. tor to Memorandum of writ pet1ton is filed under rts22b & 227 of the Constitution prayzng that Uiis court be pleaseo to queen nneE ct22 796 by R c.•t • etc Writ petition comign on for hearing this day, he court made the foiiowing I have neard the petitioners iearnea advocate as also the learned advocate representing the contesting respondents as also the learned Bovt 8dvocsto on merits 2 This is an old proceeding and t.he patitzoner has, challenged the nrant of occupancy rights in favour of the respondents because it is pointed out that these were essentially inam lanos and tnat the regrant has taken piece only in the year 1981 and the petitioner’s learned 5/QOCtS submits therefore that the entIre 3 contention of the respondents that they should be deemed to have been tenants in occupation as on li974 is lepally untenable The respondents learned advocate has submitted that the position as on l3. 1574 is material and he heavily relies on an admsson by toe etztoners before the trbunai to thc effect that the resoondents were in oossee. ion and cultivation of the lands for abcjt 45 years Wh t the learned advoc.ate is empnasising is that it is not as though some stray claim is being made in order to take advantage of or cat o prior ro - ojt ne submits & I— that is cloanly establishes as is borne out by the evenue recc.rds that the respondents a ..rn for a long time prior to that 3 The petitioners learned advocate has submitted that this would not make any difference in law because it cannot confer niphes on the Jf) peteioners because he ubmts that 4-’ the lands were r-eoranted to hi clients, there can be no question of the etitzoners ciamnc 1 relationship of tenants visavis him The learned advocate further points out that there is one very important factor in this case namely that 4 the parties admit that an agreement to sell was entered into in the year 1962 and that this fully explains the status of the respondents in law and that they can only be categorised as prospecti purchasers. He submits that if this is the ieQal status that they can nevEr qualify for confement of occupancy rights Had this been aii I would have certainly accepted the submissions canvassed by the petitioners learned dvocate Tne real di.fficulty is that one is required to view this areement elon with the admsson before toe tribunal t.hat the respondents were in the picture rnucn earlier It that is the posztion one has to take note of the fact that the agreement t. sell never turned znto a fulif1edged sale and in this background that agreement can never chance the •orina1 statue of the respondents who have before the tribunal that they were tenants and that they used to pay two bags of paddy as rentlhis is. really the crux of the matter. To my in ind the tribunal wa.e justified in having accented tne iaim of the respondents 4. Petitioners I.earned advocate pDinted out to me that there are some procedural 5 rregu1arites with regard to the conduct of the enquiry but I have carefully perusE.d these and I am satisfied that none of them are either rave enough to vitzate the proceeding nor for that matter are they serious enough to have grossly altered a fair outcome Under these circumstences I am not prepared to uphold any of those as they are of an insignificant nature 5 Having regard to the aforesaid situ tion, un my mind th1s is one of the cases n which no interference would be called for ny this Courts The order of the tribuna I is accordingly confirmed. The writ petition fails and stands disposed of No order as to