Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gowramma (Since Dead By Lrs. S. ... vs The Land Tribunal, The Tahsildar And ... on 1 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: ILR2006KAR2994
Author: K. Ramanna
Bench: K. Ramanna
ORDER K. Ramanna, J.
Page 0623
1. This writ petition is filed by the legal representatives of Smt. Gowramma, seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Land Tribunal in LRF.ATC.982/1977-78 conferring occupancy rights in respect of 4 acres 13 guntas of land in survey No. 92 of Singana Agrahara, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, in favour of the third respondent.
Page 0624
2. The brief facts leading to this case are that, Smt. Gowramma, the deceased petitioner herein, died on 14.9.1998. During her life time she had executed a registered will wherein the land measuring 4 acres 13 guntas in survey No. 92 of Singana Agrahara, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, has been bequeathed in favour of fourth petitioner herein. Survey No. 92 along with other lands in the said village are the lands assigned as emoluments of the village office of Shanbhogu. Late Ramanna, father-in-law of Smt. Gowramma, was the shanbhogu. He died during the year 1932, and after his death Sri Shamanna, the husband of Gowramma, the deceased petitioner herein, was performing the duties of Shanubhogu and was in possession of all the lands assigned to the office of the Shanubhogu.
3. After coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Support Act, 1951, Smt. Gowramma filed an application for regrant of the lands in possession of her husband as Shanubhogu. The third respondent herein who was a tenant under Ramanna, father-in-law of Smt. Gowramma, also filed an application for regrant. After enquiry, the Asst. Commissioner re-granted the land bearing survey No. 92 measuring 4 acres 13 guntas in favour of Smt. Gowramma, without prejudice to the right of tenancy and with a condition that the lands should not be leased for a period of 15 years. The claim of the third respondent was rejected with liberty to agitate his rights before then appropriate authorities.
4. The third respondent filed form No. 7 claiming occupancy right as tenant under Ramanna, father-in-law of Smt. Gowramma. The Land Tribunal, after enquiry, in Case No. LRF.ACT.982/1975-76 granted occupancy right in favour third respondent in respect of the land in question. Aggrieved by this order Smt. Gowramma challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No. 16314/1982. In view of Karnataka Amendment Act 19 of 1986, this Court by its order dated 10.7.1986 transferred the matter to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore District, Bangalore. Before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore District, Bangalore, the same was registered and renumbered as LRA.95/1986. Again, in the year 1990, an amendment was brought to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, abolishing the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authorities in the State, therefore a civil petition came to be filed before this Court and the same has been registered as W.P.25959/1993. This Court by its order dated 28.5.1997 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to given an opportunity to Smt. Gowramma to file her objection and adduce her evidence. Aggrieved by this order the third respondent herein filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.32637/97. The same came to be rejected on 9.3.1998. After quashing the order passed by the Tribunal and remand made by this Court in W.P.25959/1993 the Tribunal took up case in LRF.ACT.982/1975-76 for fresh enquiry and after giving sufficient opportunity to all the concerned parties, including Smt. Page 0625 Gowramma, and after recording their evidence, again the Tribunal by its order dated 4.12.1999 conferred occupancy right in favour of third respondent herein in respect of the land in question. It is this order which has been challenged in this writ petition by the petitioners.
5. It is necessary to mention a few facts which had taken place earlier to above said events. The third respondent had filed a suit O.S.No. 815/1970 against Smt. Gowramma for permanent injunction, contending that he had taken the land in question on lease from Ramaswamiah and others. The suit came to be decree on 30.1.1973. Against which an appeal in R.A.52/1973 has been preferred by Smt. Gowramma, the same came to be dismissed on 7.11.1973.
6. Smt. Gowramma, on 4.9.1971, filed an application in the prescribed form before the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, requesting for re-grant of the land in question. After a detailed enquiry the Tahsildar, in case No. VOA78/80-81, as per Section 6 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, by order dated 18.2.1989 re-granted the land in question to Smt. Gowramma, with conditions that the re-granted land should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years and without prejudice to the tenancy rights existing if any. But, the claim made by the third respondent for re-grant was rejected by the Tahsildar.
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the petitioner Smt. Gowramma and the learned Counsel for third respondent and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader for respondents-1 and 2.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has erred in conferring occupancy right in favour of third respondent by not considering the fact that the land in question was re-granted in favour of the deceased petitioner Smt. Gowramma in case No. VOA78/80-81 by the Tahsildar on 18.2.1989 itself, and in fact the third respondent has not challenged this order. Therefore, the Tribunal is wrong in coming to the conclusion that the third respondent was a tenant under Ramanna, father-in-law of the deceased petitioner Smt. Gowramma and the Tribunal has erroneously conferred occupancy right in favour of third respondent. Further it was contended that the Tribunal should not have considered the judgment of the civil court passed in O.S.815/1970 in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Tribunal has not at all taken into consideration the R.T.C. for the years 1969-70 to 1973-74, 1989-90 to 1995-96, column No. 12 of these R.T.Cs. show the name of the petitioners. Further the Tribunal again erred in not considering the pahanis and the tax paid receipts paid by the petitioner Smt. Gowramma. In fact the pahanis produced by the third respondent have all been tampered and fabricated one. The third respondent was never in possession and was not a tenant of the land in question, but still the Tribunal has erroneously conferred occupancy right in favour of the third respondent, which is highly illegal and incorrect and the same is liable to be quashed. The second respondent Tahsildar also erred in holding that the mutations issued Page 0626 could be construed as an admission on the part of Smt. Gowramma that the land had been leased. But there is no admission on the part of Smt. Gowramma in this regard. It is submitted that the third respondent was only called upon to look after the trees grown in the land in question. Therefore, he was never a tenant nor was he cultivating the land in question. In view of these facts and circumstances the Tribunal has wholly erred in conferring occupancy right in favour of third respondent and the same is liable to be quashed.
9. On the other the learned Counsel for the third respondent submitted that the land in question is admittedly a shanubhogu inam land. Sri Ramanna, the father-in-law of the deceased petitioner Smt. Gowramma, was the Shanubhogu of the village and was in possession of all the lands assigned to the office of the Shanubhogu On 21.9.1961 the children of Rammanna have executed an agreement of lease in favour of third respondent herein to cultivate the land as per Ex.A7. After the death of Ramanna, his son Shamanna, the husband of Smt. Gowramma was performing the duties of Shanubhogu. It is submitted that the alleged re-grant made in favour of Smt. Gowramma was subject to the claims of the tenancy rights of the third respondent. It is further submitted that Section 8 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act protected the rights of the tenants. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the land was re-granted to the petitioners and that the land belongs to them only cannot be accepted.
10. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the third respondent that the civil court in O.S.No. 815/1970 has declared that the third respondent is the tenant by relying on documents like Ex.P5, a lawyer's notice issued by Smt. Gowramma herself asking the third respondent to give the share of trees grown in her land. Further it is submitted that Ex.P4, pahani, in the cultivators column the name of the third respondent has been shown. Exs.P2 and 3, R.O.R.-cum-pahani extracts, show Venkatareddy, the third respondent, as the cultivator. Against the decree passed in O.S.815/1970 the petitioner Smt. Gowramma preferred R.A.52/1973. The same came to be dismissed on 7.11.1973. The judgment and decree dated 7.11.1973 passed in R.A.52/1973 are not challenged by Smt. Gowramma and the same has become final and is binding on the petitioners since the amended Land Reforms Act came into force in the year 1974. Therefore, the learned Counsel for third respondent submits that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. The learned Counsel for third respondent in support of his argument has relied on a number of decisions to show that the re-grant of inam land shall be subject to tenancy rights. He relied on a decision reported in the case of Ningappa since deceased by his LRs v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , wherein this Court held that:
Page 0627 Occupancy right to a tenant in such a case can be granted and whether such inam land is re-granted to the holder of the office is an irrelevant consideration in matter of granting occupancy rights.
Further, he relied on another decision of this Court reported in the case of Smt. Girijamma v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2000(3) Kar. L.J. 327 wherein this Court held that:
... Grant of occupancy in respect of- Land Tribunal, set up under Land Reforms Act, has jurisdiction to confer occupancy on tenant cultivating service inam lands on relevant date - Re-grant of such land on erstwhile holder of village office is not relevant for conferring occupancy on tenant.
The learned Counsel relied on another decision of this Court, reported in the case of Narayana Rao M. v. Land Tribunal, Honnal and Anr. 1980(1) Kar.L.J. 39, wherein this Court held that:
If a person was a lessee lawfully cultivating the land prior to the abolition of the inam and if he had continued to cultivate the land on 1.3.1974, he would be entitled to claim occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act, notwithstanding the vesting of the inam and re-grant of the land to the inamdar under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961.
Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the third respondent that even if the re-grant is made in favour holder of village office it will be subject to tenancy rights. Therefore, he prayed that the above writ petition be dismissed as devoid of merits.
12. I have perused the entire records. It is an admitted fact that the land in question is a Shanubhogu inam land which was in possession of late Sri Ramanna, father in law of Smt. Gowramma. It is seen from the record that the children of late Ramanna, as far back as 21.9.1961, executed a lease agreement, Ex.A7, in favour of third respondent, for cultivation of the land in question on lease. After the death of Shamanna, Smt. Gowramma, wife of Shamanna, was receiving the rent from the third respondent which has been proved before the civil court in O.S.No. 815/70.
13. In the meanwhile the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was introduced, therefore the third respondent filed an application before the Land Tribunal for conferment of occupancy right in respect of the land in question. After enquiry, the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy right in respect of the land in question in favour of third respondent
14. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 22.10.1981 passed by the Tribunal in case No. LRF.ATC.982/1975-76 is against a dead person. That order was passed against late Sri Ramanna who died in the year 1932 itself. Therefore, that order is a nullity in the eye of law.
Page 0628
15. Of course it is a nullity in the eye of law but that defect has been ordered to be cured by this Court in W.P.No. 25959/1993 by setting aside the order dated 22.10.1981 passed in LRF.ATC.982/75-76 and directing the Land Tribunal to conduct an enquiry afresh after impleading Smt. Gowramma as party and after giving her sufficient opportunity to adduce her evidence and after recording the statements of all the concerned parties, and then to dispose of the case in accordance with law. The Tribunal, after following the directions of this Court, by impleading Smt. Gowramma as a party to the proceedings and after recording the statements of all the witnesses, including that of Smt. Gowramma, again conferred occupancy right in favour of third respondent in respect of the land in question on the basis of the documentary and material evidence available on record. Therefore, this contention of the petitioners fail.
16. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that after coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Support Act, 1951, an application for re-grant of the land was made by Smt. Gowramma and several others including the third respondent. Ultimately, the Asst. Commissioner upheld the claim of Smt. Gowramma in respect of the land in question and rejected the claim of the third respondent herein. Therefore, Smt. Gowramma had become the absolute owner of the said land and the third respondent has lost all his rights over the land in question, and the Land Tribunal, without considering this order, has conferred occupancy rights in favour third respondent in respect of the land in question.
17. Of course, Smt. Gowramma was re-granted with the land in question after coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, but Section 8 of the Act provided protection to the tenants of such re-granted lands. It is relevant to quote Section 8 of the Act, which reads as under:
8. Application of tenancy law. - If any land granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State has been lawfully leased and such lease is subsisting on the appointed date, the provisions of the tenancy law for the time being in force in that area in which the land is situated shall apply to the said lease and the rights and liabilities of the person to whom such land is granted under Section 5, 6 or 7 and his tenant or tenants shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be governed by the provisions of the said tenancy law.
Therefore, in view of the above section, the third respondent, being the tenant under Smt. Gowramma, has every right of claim over the land in question. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal or incorrect.
18. In support of his argument the learned Counsel for third respondent has relied on several decisions of this Court as quoted above to show that the tenants have every right to claim tenancy right over the land in question. In view of this position of law and in view of the judgments of this Court, as cited above, it can be clearly said that even if the land is re-granted to the holder of the village office, the tenants have every right of claim over the land under the Tenancy Law. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner Gowramma had become the absolute owner of the land in question in view Page 0629 of the re-grant made in her favour under the Karnataka Village Offices Support Act, 1951, cannot be accepted.
19. As far as record of rights and pahanis are concerned, the pahanis for the years 1961-62 to 1969-70 and upto 1995 show the name of the third respondent under cultivators column. Even in the R.T.C. for the year 1998-99 in the column No. 12(2) the name of third respondent is shown. These documents are not questioned by the petitioner before any court or authority and hence under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act they have presumptive value and therefore the presumption has to be drawn in favour of third respondent. In view of these documents also it can be safely said that third respondent was cultivating the land as tenant under Smt. Gowramma prior to 1.3.1974 and thereafter.
20. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy right in respect of the land in question in favour of the third respondent, and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
21. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit.