Karnataka High Court
Muniswamappa (Deceased) By L.Rs vs Muniswamy Alias Gangappa (Deceased) By ... on 25 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(4)KARLJ47, 2004 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 3034, 2004 AIHC 4273, (2004) 4 KANT LJ 47, (2004) 3 KCCR 1686
Author: V. Gopala Gowda
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased applicant before the Land Tribunal. They are aggrieved by the rejection of the tenancy claim in respect of Sy. Nos. 101/1, 101/2 and 56/3 of Rajenahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk and seeking to quash the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B passed by the Land Tribunal.
2. Mr. G.D. Aswathanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the statement of the first petitioner and his brother found at pages 54 and 55 of the records of the Land Tribunal are not recorded in terms of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (in short called as 'Rules'), by the Chairman; that the finding of the Tribunal in Annexure-A is contrary to documentary evidence as name of petitioners' father is entered in the cultivator's column which has got presumptive value under the provision of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964. He further submits that the application of 5th respondent in respect of Sy. No. 101 was rejected by the Land Tribunal in Annexure-B and he has not challenged the said order. Therefore, the rejection of claim of 5th respondent enures to the benefit of the petitioners for considering their claim. Non-consideration of this aspect of the matter vitiates the findings and reasons recorded by the Land Tribunal in its order and hence rejection of their claim is bad in law and therefore they have prayed for quashing the impugned order and remit back the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner of the District for reconsideration of their claim.
3. The learned Counsel for the first respondent justifies grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 3-05 acres in Sy. No. 101/2 in favour of first respondent. He placed strong reliance upon the statement of the first petitioner, which statement is endorsed by second petitioner, who have categorically stated that their father and themselves have not cultivated the lands in question, but admitted the cultivation of the land by first respondent. Learned Government Pleader also justifies the impugned orders by placing reliance upon the original Land Tribunal record and RTC records. He submits that the Chairman of the Land Tribunal recorded the statements of the first petitioner and other witnesses and it is in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules.
4. This matter was heard at length. Today also again the learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard with reference to the original records of the Land Tribunal. It is seen that the grant of occupancy rights in favour of first respondent is based upon the statement of the petitioners and other witnesses, on appreciation of legal evidence on record, the finding of fact is recorded on the contentious issue by the Land Tribunal. The learned Counsel is unable to show from the legal evidence on record to show that the findings and reasons recorded in the order by the Tribunal are vitiated either on account of erroneous finding or error in law. Hence, the same does not call for interference with by this Court.
5. Non-consideration of the claim of petitioners in respect of Sy. No. 101 cannot be entertained by this Court in these proceedings for the reason that the first petitioner and his brother have categorically stated that they were not in possession and cultivation of the land the Land Tribunal examined their claim in respect of Sy. Nos. 14/1, 14/2, 56/1 and 56/2 and granted occupancy rights in their favour in respect of the land in question after satisfying the claim of the petitioners on the basis of legal evidence on record. The same is not challenged by anybody. Hence, the petitioners cannot have any grievance.
6. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the claim of 5th respondent was rejected under Annexure-B and the same shall enure to the benefit of the petitioners, is wholly untenable and liable to be rejected. Rejection of the calim of rival claimant will not enure to the benefit of other claimant. The tenancy claims have to be proved independently by the applicants by producing acceptable legal evidence either before the Land Tribunal or concerned jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. They cannot base their claim on the rejection of claim of rival applicants.
7. The other contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that in the RTC the name of petitioners' father is mentioned and non-consideration of those entries vitiated the findings of the Tribunal which have got presumptive value in their favour to show that they have been in lawful possession and cultivation of the lands as tenants and they are entitled for grant of occupancy rights also cannot be accepted by this Court in view of the statement of the first petitioner endorsed by second petitioner and the witnesses examined before the Tribunal wherein they have categorically stated that they are not in possession of the land in question. Therefore, it has to be held that the entries in the RTC for the relevant period have been rebutted by the evidence on record produced by both the petitioners and other rival claimants.
8. Another contention urged to assail the impugned orders is that the land is a inam land and the same had vested in the State Government with effect from 1-7-1970 and therefore the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent under Section 6 of the Mysore (Religious Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 is contrary to the decisions in Sanjeevaiah v. Land Tribunal, Gubbi and Ors.,1984(1) Kar. L.J. 509 and N. Seshadri v. State of Karnataka and Ors., . ILR 1999 Kar. Sh. N. 110 This contention cannot be entertained as the Land Tribunal has examined and considered the tenancy claim of the first respondent and fifth respondent in respect of the lands in question after carefull consideration of their claim with reference to the statutory rights conferred under the provisions of the Act of 1954 and therefore the reliance placed upon by the learned Counsel on the decisions referred to supra in support of the contention that the first respondent cannot be a kadim tenant or protected tenant or any other tenant under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1955 as the competent person has not leased the lands in question in his favour. This contention cannot be accepted by this Court for the reason that firstly, the law laid down in the aforesaid cases does not apply to the fact situation, secondly, the fourth respondent-Land Tribunal herein is a fact-finding Tribunal, and on appreciation of facts and legal evidence on record it has recorded a finding of fact holding that the first respondent is a tenant which finding cannot be interfered with by this Court as the petitioners have failed to make out a ground for interference with the findings of fact recorded by the Land Tribunal in favour of the first respondent, thirdly, the State Government has not challenged the order of grant of occupancy rights in favour of first respondent as it is alone competent to question the legality of the order on the ground that lands in question are not tenanted lands as they were not leased in favour of the first respondent by the competent officer of the Government. That apart, if the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is accepted, then the claim of the petitioners also could not have been entertained by the Land Tribunal for the same reason, hence the above contention urged placing reliance upon the provisions of the Act and decisions of this Court are wholly untenable in law and therefore the submission made in this regard cannot be accepted, accordingly rejected.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.