Karnataka High Court
Bodi Narasappa vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2011
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAWA,D'EF{AFi:i.MO'._ A
LRRP No.482OI,:OF,I:..988"'AO,» ' A
BETWEEN: " '-
BODI NARASAPPA, "
SINCE DECEASED BY PROPO_SED LRs..,. "
1(a) MUNIYAPPA, _ "
SON OF LATE"BODI'1NARIASARRA; _
AGED ABOUT 60"Y_EARS, " L.
RESIDING AT'"KADADE*N_'A.IjiALLI VILLAGE,
MALUR*;TALUi<, KOLAR DI'STP.--I.CT
1(b) SANIIIEEVAPPA,Vff. Q'
' V .... _S/'O.,,LAT:gBO.D'I.N'AR~AS,ABPA,
" AG'E.'I)_AB€)UT4 SQ YEARS,
._ RES.IDIN~G AT 'I<ADA'D'ENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MALUR_TAjLUK,._}<OLAR DISTRICT
~ V = PETITIONERS
('BY SRI B."M.I"<'RISHNA BHAT, ADV.,)
.....
V _ "1._'S.TAT'E,._OjF KARNATAKA
« 'BY_iS_E'CRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
"M.S'.'BUILDING,
" _D'I-. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE -- 560 001
THE LAND TRIBUNAL
MALUR TALUK,
MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT
:'«A:PP_LICANTS R4 & R5)
2
3. HAJI SAYYED ISMAIL,
SINCE DECEASED BY PROPOSED LRS.,
(a) SAYYED AFFIS SAB,
S/O LATE SAYYED ISMAIL, MAJOR,
RESIDING AT BODI MARKET,
BANGALORE CITY, 1
NOW RESIDING IN YESHwANTHAPD--RAjvILLA«GE,_: 1' '~
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR D,IsTRI<:T _,
(b) SAYYED ABUBAKKAR sAB,'g
S/O LATE SAYYED ISMAIL, " _
MAJOR, RESIDENT OF._B'ODI MARKET; "
CANTONMENT, BANGALQRE_CITY*,- ' 3
BANGALORE DISTRICT-; - "
4. A.R. NAGARAJIUVS/'01'RAMAI:AEi;iV"_RED.DY
AGED ABOUT 5.5.__Y_E.ARS,.._ .
R/AT_KAIKONDRAHALLI'-wLLAG;E,
CARMELA.RAM*9Os_T', "
BANGALORE sO_u_T-H T'=AL*ujK,, A
5., ~ LSR,I'R~AMAP_3PA 'S/O. GORALAPPA,
AG_EDfABC)LJ,T-43'~Y_EARS,
R/AT' NAL'LAF»RAN.AHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA-,HO..B-1 .1,'-M'AL'uR TALUK,
KOLAR DIsTR_ICT.~T' RESPONDENTS
- (BY sRI NAZRULLA KHAN, HCGP., FOR R1--2,
A SRI G;B.._SHASTRI, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R1--2
'"::RI K.SRIHARI & LEX JUSTICA FOR IMPLEADING
THIS' FILED UNDER SECTION 121--A. OF K.L.R.
ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.06.1988 PASSED IN
DLRA...223./86 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE
' AUTHORITY, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
u'F»,,'II~iE,_.ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL MALUR IN CASE
" _NO_.LRF.433/74-75 DATED 8.7.1977.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS
"THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
W
ORDER
The revision under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is directed against the 8.7.1977 in LRF.433/74-75 on the file of the-Land..Vfffr'i'bo.'n'al%',» Kolar, and the order dated 16.6.1988»-in file of the Land Reforms Appellate _
2. The contextual facts the --le:arned'f§coViJnsel for the petitioners, to, are:
a) Bodi NVarasaP,Pa,:'_tsincqeii and father of petitioners 'an-V.'app»Vlication in Form No.17 before seeking registration of benevolent provisions of Karnata'ka" 1961, to register him as cultivator aridivioccuplantvlof the land measuring 1 acre 31 ~.._,gu"r1~tas:,._"f;.n '"SiJrvevVV""N'o.19 and 1 acre 17 guntas in Sun/ey Nallappanahalli village, Malur Taluk, under one_:Ha:_i.i Ismail Sab (owner).
If In the application, he specifically averred he has a tenant under Haji Sayyed Ismail for 3 years preceding ll 37/ 4 filing of the application on 28.12.1974. The application was registered in LRF.433/75-76' and pending issuance of___notice, Haji Sayyed Ismail resisted the claim disputing aplplilav-:e,rments therein. It
c) Again he filed an app|ic.atio:ngoj.nu'8.'1_.1'97'5'xallegilng 7' that while he was in physical .posse;s_sion cu!,t'i'vaAti:ng tjhe'lsa_ids. lands, Haji Sayyed Ismail (leslsorn) trespa-ss_VedV':up'on the land and ploughed it, In the application, he p'leadeC'l,.,.|.1.,§l'°--_ and sought for re--delivery of 'a'p"p-l-S-cation was separately registered before the same Land Triburiél. 7' 1777.'
d) Imuring Vtl1eV'enq.u.i'ry that ensued, Bodi Narasappa as a|so.ithe'lessor%Ha_j_i____Sayyed Ismail contested. The Tribunal, »examinirag'«th'e___material evidence placed before it, rejected Hbo.t'hVthvek-agppA'l:ications by order dated 8.7.1977 aggrieved by I which E'V:.Qdi4'.l\larasappa filed W.P. 42328/86 before this court alleging non--grant of opportunity by the Tribunal and non- at consideration of the evidence on record. W A /
e) In the said writ petition, he also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27,. C.P.C. seeking toyylrlpfroyduce additional evidence] This court disposed of and remanded the case to the file of the Ap-peliate-l..Authority»a'V--_V constituted under the Land Reforhjs Actjfor c4Q'n'si4dera_tief2.'of 1' the grievance of Bodi Narasappa"'o_n" mer,it.i' re"-A. numbered before the Appe||ateV1"lTri'baJ_nalas
f) The appellate Tribunal gave him oPDortunlVt\{:«and heard' Ciinvexamination of the material on material particulars furnished.by'~the°*appiicyaniteBo-di..Narasappa in Form No.7 to seek '1 did not establish he is in occupatioi,,._4of.,|aVn.d'a'to" extent of 1 acre 31 guntas in Suv_w:ey:'_l'*No.1€V9.' acre 17 guntas in Survey No.27. Beslideréa.tihe'learned member of the Appellate Tribunal in question were subject to Jodi village and the.r'efo"re.,.'4the provisions of the Mysore Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Agctyffor brevity) was applicable as it had come into effect '1.
/, 6 from 1.2.1959. The Appellate Tribunal also considered the order passed by the Special Deputy Comm-i.__Ssioner (competent authority under the said Act)".V:'in'g:'--..:'VC.ase No.531/1961-62) to hold that Bodi Narasappa-'..gvv'as~t.he"tenant only in respect of 5 guntas in Survey-No.1'_9/3;."airivd_ --'.gi~un'tasl T in Survey No.27/3, invoking Selctionl register him as tenant only to-.t:h'e_ylimited
g) The Appellate. Ex.P14, endorsement issued dated 10.1.1996 only to the limited u"'rel°erence to Ex.P6 dated supporting the claim of Bodi of 5 guntas sappa was the tenant. on|y'4'in._:respect- ol'w:5 guntas in Survey No.19/3 and 13 'Su_rveyéV|§lo.27/3. Therefore, the Tribunal held his
9..claim'asputuforward in Form No.7 was an exaggeration. Halving discussed about the earlier proceedings 'Sunder the Inams Abolition Act, the Appellate Tribunal also lnoticied that the 3" respondent in this petition--Haji Sayyed / 7 Ismail had resumed possession of the tenanted land from Bodi Narasappa. The material recorded before the.-Tribunal and also in these proceedings show the owner-- l*laj'i-Sayyed Ismail had filed a case in RLC.41/70 before at K.G.F. seeking resumption ofla'nd----.in 'i'_»loVs'.-'JL9 j 27 rented to tenants including - ,
i) Proceedings in that Bodi Narasappa had filed as early as 2.1.1967 to claim said land, but had comprorniésedihiywivth undertaking to deliver possesision of l'a.n'd':.'i_' The VcoVmfprgolrnvi"se._:petition filed by Bodi Narasappa in RLC.41/7u'0..ViAsV.in' the 1968 whereby Bodi Narasappa '_ de_clared' he had"-~de_l_i_vered possession of the lands which were ' i;n"*his-.occu'pa'ti.on in Survey Nos.19 and 27 in favour of Haji H Sayyed Il%l:£'rr;aAiifV .l:,)«:' During enquiry before the Tribunal, Haji Sayyed Vijlsmlail brought out these documents through his ocular .. _.testimony as PW1 which the legal heirs of Bodi Narasappa did 0%:
8
not dispute. Consequently the learned member of the Tribunal held even though Bodi Narasappa had proved he was tenant in Survey Nos.19/3 and 27/3 unde.r._l4lajij44.fSa'y<ved Ismail, his tenancy was governed by Section--'.."g" Abolition Act and that tenancy:-~w'as»oni_y of 51?. guntas and 13 guntas respectively,in.A_vS'urveyfl\los«..9'hpahid':27 and not as claimed by him tlo.t:h~e>extent. and 1 acre 17 guntas._.Besides:.the""Tribuna'l"--also held since he had compromised for re--delivery of possession in possession as cultivator " relevant date for conside.rati_o,n~,r of"---occupancy right under the provisions Act, 1961. Consequently the Appellateu"T.ribunai ._rej.ecte.d his claim. V'Petitionersfcounsel would submit such reasoning Tribunal is wholly erroneous. The Tribunal faiiled to that Bodi Narasappa had established his txenanzcypiunder Haji Sayyed Ismail--3"j respondent in respect ""V'.,,of..lafnd bearing Survey Nos.19 and 17 and therefore, he was meintitled to occupancy right under the provisions of the Land 1 xx 6"?
9
Reforms Act. He would further submit the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Case No.531/1961-62V.(-Ex.B13) and endorsement issued at Ex.B14 dated not only physical possession but cultivation Survey Nos.19 and 27 by Bodi Na-rasappau such?' documents have been totally mis'a.ppi--iedl and..:mi.sinterp.re'ted by the Tribunal. The endorse--rne._nt issued' vide . Ex.A6 by the Deputy.' Comrnisgsiolr--e_r furti'rer~'Vgestablished physical possession and the extent of 5 guntas in Survey Survey No.27/3 and V'th'e::i";en_a'n'cy of Bodi Narasappa. He would i'e'v've.nv"§though the Tribunal has referred' to "C before the Munsiff Court in RLC.41/7V0.._init.iat'e.d2 Sayyed Ismail for resumption of landi, and a|so'~.fj_l_i_n.g of compromise petition by Bodi »Na-raVsa.pp.a'«.i:n"vthe year 1968, the said proceedings did not HestablishR7B:od=iVV'VNarasappa had vacated the land and re- g delivered possession to Haji Sayyed Ismail. Oi' His core contention is, mere filing of compromise petition and agreeing to re--de|iver tenanted land does not / 10 non--suit the tenant to seek registration of occupancy right under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, unlesysthere is proof that he had actually vacated the land and._re}'d:él.i:vered possession to the owner much before étynérrp words, he would contend even if'the.ten_4ant."had_ ag-reed-~Ato'j'. vacate the land, if he was in will be entitled to registration.of'-~occupancy.Vrig_ht';'--T"'
5. Learned counsel '<:_i't.at'ional support to his contentions relying uponthe r'o.l|owi'n'gV case"laws: (3)
i3'HA':§:éPPA--. s'Hr1"pt5AriP--.l\"'---;--v5s. LAND TRIBUNAL
1. ~(19_8o[;] "i<ayr...__'L--.w._.1_.V 205) ' '_Vw|j_e'rein"th.is'*-,cQu'r't' opined mere permission to s.__su_rre'r:der~.tenanted...*'land without delivery of pos.ses'siiVon.4of_the land by the tenant does not put = ' an 'end..to».the__r'el_at'ionship of landlord and tenant. a
(b)"",NARAsA'MMA_"..'r' .vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA '(2,o09[5] "scc 591) wheTein____ythe apex court held, if possession in respect of a /and in dispute on the relevant date , in favour of the applicant showing cultivation " an.d..~possession, he/she is entitled to registration occupancy rights in respect thereof and ~ finsisting on material document in support of such ' plea was not justified.
STATE OF KARNATAKA (1997[3] SCC 593) wherein the apex court observed that the object of tenancy Act is to protect the tenants to remain .vs. UPPEGOUDA 11 in possession and enjoy it subject to compliance of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It is further held by the Apex Court that contractedrtenancy comes to an end and statutory tenangcysets in operation and so he would be eligible' for ejectment only on proved grounds"'of..'s-tatuvtory contravention and the entries of revenues-reco:ic'ds= are se/f--serving.
(d) VENKATARAMANAPA 1,.vs.[...4i3;.NjisiA.RAs1*wiH,'Ac,;HAR (2004[4] Kar.L.J. 307)".
wherein this court has: held tiiat"'denia'i~ to tenants merely on the-gropund that his,n"a.rrie" was not found in record of rights»..in respe'ct_of'/and for years subsequent to 19.70-71,---is,not"sustain'ab/e..in law when entry in record of fights is. pro._ve_d" to be incorrect.' The Bench observed é;hus;7;
4'F'ro_n'i.._..the .re_a'd..i_ng." of sub--section (1) of Section .25., itis a'bundavntly"'icl'ear that a right is g.i.v.e.n "to the,:'_teil--»ar:t__ to terminate the tenancy of {any landhelfcl by/"hi_n1 at any time by surrender of his i.nte~rf6'StVithé--re'i"n. in favour of the landlord, but the said' sju.rre.nder" by the tenant before the tribuunall _ and is" made in good faith to the ,satisfa'ction-of thetribunal and is registered in the offic'e--.».Q_f the tribunal in the prescribed 'm"anrier. Therefore, mere executing a document _ in favourof the landlord is not sufficient.' H 6'§v3'a._se;d"on the case laws, learned counsel for the
--V pet.i"tion'*eérs"vvould contend, in the instant case, though Haji .f:"4":g».:Sayeedslsmail (3'd respondent) has proved Bodi Narasappa
- lfiadllcompromised with him and agreed to surrender tenancy or":
12
and re-deliver possession, there was no proof before the Tribunal that he had in fact re--delivered possession. Therefore, execution of Ex.R7 (compromise petition')-fivi/a.sv..not sufficient.
7. Relying upon the last decisionLreferre,d"--to'~su_prva, he T' submits even though under Sectiionv."25(1);"of;
tenant can surrender his in land, it should be shown good "faith to the satisfaction of the registered before the Tribunal On this ground, he submits, in is no document to show the before the Tribunal, we cannotx'tal<e notice»Aof.bth'~e_:'compromise petition. Therefore, he se6KS.,sett4i"nC,1.:l asivdef-ofvsthe order of the Land Reforms ..,.,Ap"pe:lla--te Authority". ""
'aI'.n,:..n'e.gation of these grounds, respondents' counsel
--V would svubmit, Bodi Narasappa was no doubt a tenant under Haj-i_SaVyyed Ismail, but his tenancy was only in respect of 5 lguntas and 13 guntas in Survey Nos.19 and 27 respectively 13 which also he surrendered by Ex.R7. Therefore, burden was on him to establish he was tenant under Haji Sayyed Ismail as on 1.4.1974.
9. Keeping in mind what is urged, the material made available. II_hav.egfals«o hiryeferredutoiyuthe1""
factual matrix in paragraphs.a'su_.pra is clearly establishes that Bodi the tenant under the 3rd respondent in' Vl'a«n_d..lVVl'bearingHASurvey Nos.19 and 27 of l\lallappyagniaihgalhvlwir Malur Talu k. Documentary: form of proceedings before authority under the * Inams Abolition Act, 1954, in_'Case' shows Bodi Narasappa had claimed and ._was.7'fou-nd.":to be tenant only in respect of 5 guntas respectively in Survey Nos.19/3 and
-_.27g'_/*3; :::'Those~proceedings are earlier in point of time than Form _l.\.'o'.:l"/:'..--Alsubmitted by him before the Tribunal on 28.12'.1_§74. In Form No.7 In Form No.7 filed on ""x._2~8,1"2.1974, he has claimed 1 acre 31 guntas and 1 acre 17 .j__g§untas in Survey Nos.19 and 27 respectively of the same \""
14
village. That claim undoubtedly is factually incorrect.' He does not dispute the earlier proceedings and even.-in these proceedings, learned counsel for the petitionersWhats"relied on it. Therefore, Bodi Narasappa and after him~,.':.:his:ilTeg'a'l who are continuing the proceedings, -'_,were"'V:vregui.redl'3toT. establish the fact that tenancy was -of«.1' guntas and 1 acre 17 gura.ta's..,_%in 9Su.rvey:"l§los..V41'9" and 27 respectively. They havefaile,d~t?§"€stz1'v§lish it.-7.
10. Besides, fact that in the second applic.ation-. Bodi Narasappa in r'e--delivery of the land in contention that he was dispossessed' Ismail. In the first application, he c_Ia.imeda"to._:Vbewin p-hyssical possession as on 1.4.1974, but in "':th'e:,,,'SeC'0..nd alpvplication on 8.9.1975, he alleged he has bee'nred,is»p_o'ssess.ed. In the normal course, we would not have giiveln muc_h:'..~importance but in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the 3"' respondent--Haji Sayyed Ismail has V"'V'.,'spec"i'fically pleaded that by virtue of proceedings in '.1"i-.:._EiLC.41/70, Bodi Narasappa had delivered physical {\/.
WV 15 possession of land to him in the year 1978 as evidenced by Ex.R7, the statement of Bodi Narasappa that he h*a_s been dispossessed, through his application on 8.9.1Q7"FV:'Vfsaj's,..t'oVbe construed as supporting the case of the Ismail than the petitioner.
11. I have applied the .dictum_V_of thea.'cva$é:,_,l.aWj§s There can be no two opinions'Vl'i'o.rjp'thVe po's-ition: ofjlaw that an agreement between tl1;:e"'t.ene.i_VntiaAn'd..,la»n"dlo,rd for re--delivery of possession mayggput an tenancy', but if the tenant beiijvivlri"'possession after such agreemenf. as on 1.4.1974, the he will be treated as a statutollryxltenlarlt__.aVri,tl.»ent:l:tle'd to the benefits of tenancy law to be ..register,edVVa's an 'occupant. Therefore, the facts and ' V' "v--.cir'cu'ms't'an"ces of each case need to be examined. instant case, sufficient material is available
-V on '.r'eco"r.d through the application of Bodi Narasappa himself VV8"'.9.197S that he was tenant in possession and the if"?
proceedings in RLC.41/70 abut his undertaking to re-deliver 16 the land to the owner. I am, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is after analyzing the evidence on record in the correct perspect.iy_eVV'an'd"also applying the position of law applicable circumstances of the case. T:he'"ordpel:p s.:uffers from "pnof L infirmities, legal or otherwise, calling lfo_rA'interf_ere»nce.
13. In the result, the isivviaccordingly dismissed, confirming passed in DLRA.223/86 passed L'a'n.dp'l':--'ifteforms Appellate Authority, Kpa1ef,':_;ap_¢ 8.7.1977 passed in LRF.433/7;i;.75_u_"o'pnV. Kolar, impugned in there is no order as to costs. l V it it ~7pi 7 Sd/-
.-- ..... JUDGE