Karnataka High Court
Narayana And Others vs The Land Tribunal (Iv), Managalore And ... on 12 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: ILR1999KAR3886, 1999(3)KARLJ242
ORDER
1. I have heard the respective learned Counsel in this group of petitions. Effectively, the challenge has come from Padmavathi the youngest daughter of deceased Guruva Poojari. There are several properties which are the subject-matter of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the undisputed position that emerges is that the five other children of Guruva Poojari had filed five applications which came to be decided. The contention was that each of those parties was in cultivation of certain areas of land and the landlord's consent having been obtained, the Tribunal conceded the claims. Pursuant to the grant of occupancy rights, all further steps were taken and the proceeding effectively came to be concluded in the year 1979. As late as in the year 1991, the writ petitions have been filed. The brothers challenged the orders on a variety of grounds and that was followed up by the challenge from the sister Padmavathi in the year 1992. The contention raised is a common one namely that the children became sharers in the property belonging to the deceased and that under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act a 1/6th share would devolve on each of them, that the orders passed by the Tribunal has not gone into this aspect of the law at all and that consequently the whole set of orders requires to be set aside and the case requires to be reviewed. The defence pleased is that the Tribunal itself has accepted that the children have arrived at a certain arrangement and in the light of this position, that the Court should not interfere with that order at all. Secondly, it is pointed out that the challenge has come at a late stage and thirdly, as far as Padmavathi is concerned the contention raised is that if for whatever reason she had never approached the Tribunal that she cannot at a belated stage come forward and challenge this order.
2. I do not dispute the fact that a strong plea was before me that the entire issue should be re-examined and as far as Padmavathi is concerned, Mr. Hegde advances the submission that she is effectively the one party who has totally got excluded from the proceedings. Various reasons have been given for this which I am not going into but Mr. Hegde's contention was that as one of the children, she is entitled to a share as of right and that this would require a re-examination and re-adjustment.
3. The challenge as far as the present petitions are concerned has come at a very belated stage and I am not satisfied from what has been set out that the reasons given are either plausible or acceptable. Had there been valid and genuine grounds, I would have been the first one to overlook the delay aspect because the overall interest of justice is more important than the technicalities relating to delay. This however is not one such proceedings.
4. The more important reason why I am not inclined to interfere with the orders at all irrespective of whether it is Padmavathi or her brothers is because there is a certain finality to proceedings and unless very valid and cogent reasons are set out, a Court should not interfere. As regards the contention that Padmavathi is entitled as of right by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act since she is a daughter of the original tenant, I need to record that a Court has to draw a distinction between this class of cases and all other cases relating to tenants. Even a tenancy simplicitor would be different from the present proceedings because the Courts have now held that even an ordinary tenancy may in some cases confer heritable interest but as far as the Land Reforms Act proceedings are concerned, it is not a question of paying any rent or filing up a form that is material but what is of consequence is the question as to whether one qualifies for the grant of occupancy rights. That test is a clear and definite one and it is essential that in order to qualify for occupancy rights either wholly or partially that it must be demonstrated that the party is a tenant in cultivation as on the appointed date. Mr. Hegde's submission was that the Act contemplates various situations even a situation where the applicant can satisfy the Tribunal that the cultivation is done by family members or even through hired labourer. I do not dispute this but as far as the present case is concerned the petitioner as a married daughter is living separately and even if I accept as pointed out in the petition that she lived with the family in the family house, that would not be good enough to qualify her for a share under the Land Reforms Act. As far as the challenge from the brothers go, to my mind they would be estopped from raising any plea having regard to the fact that the applications filed by them before the Tribunal have been considered and accepted. They cannot he allowed to resile from that position.
5. In this view of the matter after having very carefully considered the record and submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel to my mind this is one of the few cases where no interference is called. All the writ petitions accordingly fail and stand disposed off. No order as to costs.