Karnataka High Court
Matada Basaiah vs Gowdara Nanjappa And Others on 6 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)KARLJ357
Author: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
Bench: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
ORDER
1. This is the rival tenant's revision challenging the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Shimoga District, Shimoga in No. LRA(W) 749 of 1986, dated 27-10-1988 rejecting Form 1 by setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, Shimoga in No. INA 9, 10 of 1979-80 and VKP 23 and 24 of 1983-84, dated 17-4-1986. The lands in Sy. Nos. 3, 6/2, 20 and 41/2 situated at Venkatapura Village are the Inam lands endowed to Sri Kudli Rameshwara Devaru. In respect of the said lands, the applicants by name Sri Subbaraya, Gowdara Nanjappa, Matada Basaiah and Smt. Vrundamma filed applications for grant of occupancy rights. Subbaraya filed Form 1 claiming to be an Inamdar to the entire extent of 27 acres 29 guntas in the above survey numbers. Gowdara Nanjappa a!so filed Form 1 claiming 2 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 41/2 as a tenant under the temple. The present petitioner Matada Basaiah also filed application for grant of occupancy right as tenant under Subbaraya in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 6 guntas. Another person Manjappa, husband of Vrundarama also filed an application for grant of occupancy right in Sy. No. 41/2 to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 11-9-1981 granted occupancy right in favour of Gowdara Nanjappa to the extent of 2 acres 6 guntas and in respect of other applicants who are not parties in this petition. The said order was questioned by the present petitioner in W.P. No. 17043 of 1983 before this Court. This Court, insofar as it relates to Sy. No. 4172 quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and remitted back the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Land Tribunal took up the matter for consideration by permitting the parties to lead evidence, recorded the evidence of Manjunatha, A. Subbaraya, Gowdara Nanjappa, Vrundamma and the evidence of the petitioner-Matada Basaiah. After considering the report and the entries made in the property and income of Muzrai Institutions maintained in the Taluk Office and also the entries found in the quit rent register, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 17-4-1986 granted occupancy rights in favour of Matada Basaiah to an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas and an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Smt. Vrundamma. The order of the Land Tribunal was questioned by Gowdara Nanjappa, who is respondent 1 in W.P. No. 9587 of 1986 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 29-9-1986 transmitted the records to the Appellate Authority, Shimoga in view of the amendment and the same was registered as LRA(W) No. 749 of 1986 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by its order dated 27-10-1988 allowed the appeal of Gowdara Nanjappa setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 17-4-1986 insofar as it relates to an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas which was conferred in favour of Matada Basaiah. Being aggrieved of the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner who is a rival tenant has come up with this revision.
2. This revision is confined by both the contesting parties i.e., the revision petitioner as well as the respondent 1-Gowdara Nanjappa to the extent of 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy. No. 41/2-A and there is no dispute insofar as the other extents of lands are concerned. Hence, this revision is confined only to Sy. No. 41/2-A measuring 2 acres 26 guntas.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner represented by Smt. Vidya, vehemently contended that the Appellate Authority has erred in interfering with the finding of the Land Tribunal insofar as grant of occupancy right in favour of the petitioner-Matada Basaiah is concerned. It is secondly contended that the Inamdar viz., Subbaraya, who was the grandson of Venkataramana Shastri has clearly stated that it is the petitioner-Matada Basaiah who was the tenant in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy. No. 41 and also relied on Ext. P. 1 and submitted that the Land Tribunal considering the entire evidence of the parties has clearly held that it is the petitioner who is the tenant and the entries found in the RTC only for a period of 4 years from 1969 upto 1972-73 cannot be relied in view of the clear admission of Subbaraya Shastri. He further submitted that though there are no materials to hold that respondent 1-Gowdara Nanjappa was the tenant and also it has not come out under whom he is claiming the right of tenancy and that he has not produced any documents to prove his tenancy and that the Land Tribunal has rightly granted occupancy right in favour of Matada Basaiah. Therefore, the finding of the Appellate Authority relying only on the RTC extract for the relevant period and setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal is not proper. Therefore, prayed to allow the revision by confirming the order of the Land Tribunal dated 17-4-1986.
4. Learned Counsel Sri Hegde Hudlimane for the respondent 1 justified the order of the Appellate Authority contending that the occupancy has been granted based on the entries made in the RTC extract and that the presumption arises regarding his possession and cultivation of the land. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has rightly interfered with the order of the Land Tribunal and set aside the occupancy granted in favour of the petitioner and rightly granted occupancy in favour of respondent 1. He secondly contended that the Land Tribunal in fact has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in respect of the Inam land in view of the decision in the case of Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam, Kudli v State of Karnataka . Therefore, if it is found that the order is not proper, that the matter requires remand to the Special Deputy Commissioner for consideration of the rights of the parties.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority is based on facts and also on the basis of the entries found in the RTC extracts. Accordingly, justified the order and prayed to dismiss the revision.
6. In view of the submissions, the points for consideration that arise are:
1. Whether the jurisdiction exercised by the Land Tribunal insofar as the adjudication of the matter involving the Inam lands prior to rendering of the judgment in Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samstkanam's case, supra, dated 24-4-1992 is bad and thereby the matter requires to be remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner for adjudication?
2. Whether the Appellate Authority is justified in interfering with the finding of the Land Tribunal setting aside the grant of occupancy right in favour of the petitioner-Matada Basaiah?
3. What order?
7. The parties herein have confined their claim only in respect of Sy. No. 41/2-A measuring 2 acres 26 guntas. In respect of the said land, the revision petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 2 submitted their claims for registration of occupancy. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 17-4-1986 granted occupancy to the extent of 2 acres 26 guntas in favour of Matada Basaiah and to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of one Vrundamma, who is not a party in this revision or before the Appellate Authority. It is also not in dispute that the total extent of the land in Sy. No. 41/2 measures 4 acres 6 guntas. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent 3 that in the light of the decision in the case of Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam, supra, that the Land Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to dispose of the applications in respect of the Inam lands as the Court held that the amended Act 26 of 1979 was stillborn, null and a void Act. Therefore, it is the concerned Deputy Commissioner who is competent to dispose of the matters. In that view of the matter, it has to be examined whether the orders passed by the Land Tribunal prior to 24-4-1992 have to be declared as null and void and the same is without jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court in Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam's case, supra, has clearly held that the amendment Act 26 of 1979 is stillborn, null and void. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Eshwarappa v State of Karnataka and Others, following the judgment in Gokaraju Rangaraju v State of Andhra Pradesh, by applying the principles of de facto doctrine opined "according to which the subsequent declaration of appointment of an adjudicating body as illegal cannot tell upon the adjudication of an issue between two private litigants". The Apex Court while considering the principles of de facto doctrine at paras 4, 5 and 6 of its judgment has observed thus:
"4. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The doctrine is now well-established that "the acts of the officers de facto performed by them within the scope of their assumed official authority, in the interest of the public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and binding, as if they were the acts of officers de jure" -- Pulin Behari v King Emperor . As one of us had occasion to point out earlier "the doctrine is founded on good sense, sound policy and practical experience. It is aimed at the prevention of public and private mischief and the protection of public and private interest. It avoids endless confusion and needless chaos. An illegal appointment may be set aside and a proper appointment may be made, but the acts of those who hold office de facto are not so easily undone and may have lasting repercussions and confusing sequels if attempted to be undone.
Hence the 'de facto doctrine' -- vide Immedisetti Ramkrishnaiah Sons v State of Andhra Pradesh.
5. In Pulin Behari's case, supra, Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, J. noticed that in England the de facto doctrine was recognised from the earliest times. The first of the reported cases where the doctrine received judicial recognition was the case of Abbe of Fontaine. Sir Asutosh Mookerjee noticed that even by 1431, the de facto doctrine appearing to be quite well-known and after 1431, the doctrine was again and again reiterated by English Judges.
6. In Milward v Thatcher, Buller, J. said:
"The question whether the Judges below be proper Judges or not, can never be determined. It is sufficient if they be Judges de facto. Suppose a person were even criminally convicted in a Court of Record, and the Recorder of such Court was not duly elected, the conviction would still be good in law, he being the Judge de facto"."
It makes clear that the word 'de facto' signifies a thing actually done or that is done indeed. Applying the same principles to the facts of this case, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Land Tribunal by virtue of the powers conferred under the Amended Act 26 of 1979 prior to 24-4-1992 cannot be said to be void. Therefore, the verdict pronounced on 24-4-1992 in the case of Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam's case, supra, cannot be made applicable to orders passed prior to 24-4-1992 in exercise of power by the Land Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the jurisdiction exercised by the Land Tribunal and the order dated 17-4-1986 is valid. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered.
8. Now coming to the facts of this case, the person from whom respondent 3 claims to be a tenant is through Puttappa. In the order of the Appellate Authority it is observed that the said Puttappa is one of the family members of Subbaraya. To that extent, the evidence of Subbaraya is accepted, but rejected the evidence of Subbaraya who had also claimed the registration of occupancy on the ground that the said Subbaraya's name is not found in the RTC extracts. At the very same time, the very same principles are applicable to the case of Gowdara Nanjappa also which has been lost sight of by the Appellate Authority. When one of the family members of Puttappa i.e., Subbaraya has clearly stated that it is Matada Basaiah and another Vrundamma who were cultivating the land in question, there was no reason for the Appellate Authority to interfere with the impugned order of the Land Tribunal as the records and the spot inspection report reveals that it is Matada Basaiah who was cultivating the land to the extent of 2 acres 26 guntas. On a perusal of the RTC extract, there are some stray entries in the name of Gowdara Nanjappa. But it is clear from the evidence of Subbaraya that from the time of his forefathers, they were looking after the temple and it is Matada Basaiah and Vrundamma who were cultivating the lands for the last 20 years. In the cross-examination of Subbaraya, it is elicited that Puttappa was his paternal uncle and he has also further stated that the said Puttappa did not have any right, title or interest over the land in Sy. No. 41/2. Though it is the case of Gowdara Nanjappa that he was cultivating the land after taking it on lease from Puttappa, he has not examined any other witnesses to support his case and he has also not stated whether the said Puttappa is alive or dead and he has also not assigned any reasons as to why he has not examined the said Puttappa. Therefore, merely because of the reason that there are certain stray entries itself is not a ground to hold that it is Gowdara Nanjappa, who was cultivating the land. It is pertinent to note that the Land Tribunal had made a spot inspection and also prepared a sketch which reveals that it is Matada Basaiah who was cultivating an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas. In that view of the matter, the mere entries in the RTC in the name of Gowdara Nanjappa do not confirm any right of tenancy. It is no doubt true that a presumption arises when there are entries in the RTC extract. But the evidence available on record before the Land Tribunal is sufficient to rebut the same. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Authority is not justified in interfering with the impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 17-4-1986.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside by confirming the order of the Land Tribunal dated 17-4-1986 granting occupancy right in favour of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.
10. The parties shall bear their own costs.