Karnataka High Court
Hasansab Allasab Pendari vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2013
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.39146 OF 2004(LR)
BETWEEN:
1. HASANSAB ALLASAB PENDARI
AGE: 64 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD
DIST. DHAWRAD
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
DHARWAD
DIST-DHARWAD
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2
3. SHANTHAVEERAPPA
CHANDRASHEKARAPPA MENASINAKAI
MAJOR
R/O. SWESHVARODA
MALAMADDI, DHARWAD
DIST. DHARWAD
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH C. KOTTURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE,
FOR R3, SRI VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, HCGP, FOR R-1 & R-2)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.2, DATED
1.7.2002 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner claims to be a tenant of land bearing Sy.No.258 measuring 17 acres 19 guntas situated at Kelageri village, District Dharwad. Respondent No.3 is the landlord. The father of the petitioner was cultivating the land since 1965 till his death. Thereafter, the petitioner has been cultivating the land. Even as on date he is in possession of the land in question. On coming into force of 3 the amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act he filed an application seeking grant of occupancy rights. By the order dated 26-12-1981 the claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he filed writ petition No.30439/1982 wherein by the order dated 3-1-1985 the petition came to be allowed. The order of the tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry. On remand by the order dated 10-4-1991 the claim of the petitioner was allowed. Challenging the same, the landlord filed writ petition No.13792/1992 wherein by the order dated 6-11-1996 the petition was allowed. The order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry. On remand, by the impugned order, the plea of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
2. Sri F.V.Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the tribunal committed 4 an error in rejecting his Form No.7. That the agreement entered into on 2-5-1969 between the respondent and the father of the petitioner and in terms whereof, the petitioner was put into possession of the land and he was cultivating the same. That jowar was being grown. That in the process of cultivation, the Karnataka Electricity Board intended to put up electric poles on the land in question. The respondent landlord wrote a letter to the KEB objecting to the same. In the said letter dated 2-9-1971, which is part of the records, the landlord has stated that he is the owner of the land in question and he is cultivating the same through the petitioner. That he has grown jowar to an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas and grass is grown on the remaining extent. Relying on these two documents he contends that the tribunal committed an error in rejecting his Form No.7.
3. On the other hand, Sri Mahantesh C. Kotturshettar, learned counsel appearing for the landlord respondent No.3, defends the impugned order. He 5 contends that the tribunal has rightly considered the contentions. That there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for interference. That there is no material placed by the tenant to show that he was cultivating any crop. That there was no cultivation of grass. Grass grew in the natural course. The tenant was permitted to utilise this grass. There was absence of any cultivation. Hence, he pleads that the petition be dismissed. The learned Government Advocate supports the order of the tribunal.
4. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. The primary contention of the petitioner-tenant is based on the agreement dated 2-5-1969. I have examined the same. It would narrate that the land in question has been handed over to the petitioner herein. It is for the purpose of utilising the grass that is grown by itself. It would imply that the grass was not being cultivated either by the landlord or by the tenant. By the agreement, the petitioner was permitted to utilise the grass grown. 6 Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was growing grass on the land in question, nor is it his case that he is growing grass.
5. The second issue in the agreement is that the tenant after cutting the grass would be entitled to clean the land, cut the waste trees and to do that such acts necessary in order to bring the land fit for cultivation. On so doing he will be entitled to cultivate the land in question. These are the contents of the agreement. Therefore the tenant would have to show that as a consequence to the said agreement, he has brought the land fit for cultivation. He would have to show that the grass, the shrubs and other material were cleared by him to make it cultivable. This is so because the document itself would narrate that certain extent of land were uncultivable. Therefore, the agreement was executed permitting the tenant to do all such acts to bring the land under cultivation. However, on considering the material it does not show that any effort was made by the tenant to 7 bring the land fit for cultivation. Whether the tenant was making use of the grass, is not a relevant consideration. There is no material to show that the land was brought fit for cultivation and that the land was really being cultivated by the tenant. Therefore, the plea of the tenant based on this agreement, to contend that he is cultivating the land and growing grass as a tenant, cannot be accepted.
6. It is further contended that growing of grass would amount to cultivation. That taking care of the trees and the shrubs would also amount to cultivation. However, that is not the issue for consideration. It is nobody's case that grass was being cultivated. Infact, it is an admitted position that there was no cultivation of grass and it grew by itself. The tenant was only permitted to cut the grass that has grown by itself. It is not a case of cultivation of a grass. Hence, such a contention is unacceptable.
8
7. The further contention is that certain rent receipts have been executed by the landlord to evidence the fact of cultivation. I have examined the receipts. The rent receipt is dated 16-8-1981 for the year 1979-80. The rent receipt dated 22-10-1974 is for the year 1972-73 and 1973-74. The rent receipt dated 25-6-1975 is for the year 1974-75. The rent receipt dated 8-7-1970 for the year 1970, a rent receipt dated 1.3.1969 for the year 1969-70, a rent receipt dated 10-11-1967 for the year 1968-89, a rent receipt dated 26-4-1967 for the year 1967-68. It is therefore pleaded that these rent receipts constitute payment as rent for cultivation of crops. However on examining the receipts it could be seen that the rent receipts are only for the purpose of taking the grass that existed. It does not indicate that rents have been paid for the purpose of either growing the crops or otherwise. The specific reference therein is, 'rents towards the grass'. The reading of the rent receipts runs together with the contents of the document dated 2-5-1969, wherein it is stated that rent is being collected for the grass that is 9 grown. Therefore in terms of the document, the same matches the rent receipts. The rent receipts are for payment being made towards cutting of the grass that is grown by itself.
8. It is further contended that the landlord has issued a legal notice through his Advocate dated 2.9.1971. The notice is to the Mysore State Electricity Board, Dharwad, objecting to the fixing of electric poles to the land in question. In the notice, the respondent landlord has stated that he is the owner of the land in question and his cultivating the same through the petitioner. That he has raised jowar crop to an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas and in the rest, he has raised grass for his cattle. Therefore it is pleaded that the same amounts to admission by the landlord that he is a tenant in question. The acknowledgements for having issued the legal notice is also produced. The acknowledgement bear the seal and signature of the concerned official. Even assuming that such a letter has been written by the landlord, the same 10 would not lend any support to the case of the tenant. The paragaph relied upon by the petitioner is to the effect that the landlord is cultivating the same through the petitioner. The nature of the cultivation and status of the petitioner therein is found wanting. In order to show that the tenant is in occupation of the land in question and is cultivating the same as a tenant various materials would have to be shown to the said effect. Merely relying upon a legal notice of a proceeding unconnected with the matter of tenancy would not assist the tenant in any manner. It would not amount to an admission. Therefore, such legal notice unconnected with the matters of tenancy would not come to the aid of the petitioner-tenant. Hence, this contention is unacceptable.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Rule discharged.
SD/-
JUDGE Rsk/-