1. I.A. No. 1 of 2008 filed for production of additional documents is allowed.

2. Petitioner has sought to quash the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 1673 of 2003 at Annexure-D and for such other orders.

3. According to the petitioner, the property in Sy. No. 127/18B measuring 18 cents situate at Peradur Village of Udupi Taluk belongs to the 2nd respondent-Anantha Padmanabha Temple. The ancestors of the petitioner were chalgeni tenants from the original tenant Bogra Bandari. In this regard, the 2nd respondent has also filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and also for possession, which came to be compromised on the condition that petitioner shall pay the annual rent of Rs. 8.8 to the 2nd respondent-Temple and accordingly, he was paying the rentals. Subsequently, petitioner filed Form 7-A under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. The Assistant Commissioner, having entertained the application, has granted occupancy rights on 29-8-2001 in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-C, against which, the appeal filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by the 2nd respondent was allowed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside, against which, this petition is filed.

4. Heard.

5. In the connected writ petition disposed of by this Court in W.P. No. 7475 of 2007, dated 21-11-2008, it is opined that the Appellate Tribunal has not even adverted to the mulgeni chit and without application of mind, the order has been passed. The reasoning given by this Court is, the possession of the petitioner has continued even after demise of his father, as a tenant and also there are plantation corps and also mulgeni chit, as such, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner, which aspect has not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Tribunal was quashed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner was restored.

6. As per the finding of the Assistant Commissioner as on 1-3-1974 and prior thereof, the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Further it is noted that the petitioners father has purchased the mulgeni right of the property from one Bogra Bandari in the year 1935. It is also seen that the geni chit produced for the year 1967-68 and further RTC produced, do depict the name of the petitioner and also there are documents produced regarding payment of gutta. In that view of the matter, since in the connected matter similar order has been passed, the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside while sustaining the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

Petition is allowed.