@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V. Gopala Gowda, J.@mdashThis revision petition is directed against the order dated 20-9-1988 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order of the Land Tribunal, dated 11-3-1981 by which occupancy rights had been conferred jointly upon the petitioner and the deceased first respondent.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the tenancy right exclusively belongs to him and he alone should have been registered as occupant of the land. It is the case of the petitioner that the R.T.Cs, rent receipts, levy receipts and assessment receipts are all in his name. It is further claimed that the first respondent left the property and the petitioner alone was cultivating the land by paying the rent and he was the tenant in his individual capacity. Hence, the conferment of occupancy rights upon the first respondent is bad in law.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and first respondent were joint claimants before the Land Tribunal and accordingly occupancy rights had been granted in their names jointly. The order of the Land Tribunal disclose that the Geni Chit stood in the name of Smt. Bhamu Hengsu, the mother of the applicants and the first respondent. Rightly, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in the joint names of petitioner and first respondent and the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
4. The case of the petitioner that first respondent left cultivation of the land and he alone continued the tenancy in his individual capacity and hence the grant of occupancy in favour of first respondent is bad in law, is wholly untenable in view of Section 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which reads as under.-
"24. Rights of tenant to be heritable.--Where a tenant dies, the landlord shall be deemed to have continued the tenancy to the heirs of such tenant on the same terms and conditions on which such tenant was holding at the time of his death".
Since the tenancy rights are hereditary, the petitioner cannot claim exclusive right contrary to the statutory right conferred under the Act.
5. Smt. Pushpalatha, learned Counsel for the petitioners sought setting aside orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority on the ground that joint statement was recorded by the Tribunal which is impermissible under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 and hence the orders are unsustainable. The learned Counsel is technically right in her submission. If that is accepted, the matter will have to be remanded to the Land Tribunal for recording fresh evidence and disposal of the matter afresh. In that event the benefit of the occupancy right granted to the petitioner also will be taken away. More than two decades are already spent over this litigation. Again remanding the matter for fresh disposal will not serve the purpose as even after such remand, the hereditary right of the first respondent or his legal representatives cannot be denied nor taken away in view of Section 24 of the Act. Putting an end to the litigation will meet the ends of justice and hence, this Court declines to give much importance to the technical ground raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
6. Since the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority are in accordance with law and there is no merit in the grievance of the petitioner, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
