Karnataka High Court
Gangappa Yamanappa Chalawadi vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary ... on 3 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(2)KARLJ728, 2007 (6) AIR KAR R 410
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
ORDER N.K. Patil, J.
1. Petitioner- tenant, being aggrieved by the order dated 6th July 1988 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur in proceedings No. LRA (TR) No. 15/1986, has presented the instant LRRP.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that, petitioner was cultivating the land in S. No. 27/2 measuring 08 acres out of total extent of 10 aces situate at Kabnur Village in Bijapur Taluk and the deceased third respondent, now represented by his legal representatives was the landlord on the ground that, the third respondent had leased out the said land to the petitioner herein and that, petitioner has been cultivating the said land and accordingly, has filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights on 21st November 1974 as per the amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The application filed by petitioner had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, Bijapur on 23rd September 1981. The Land Tribunal has rejected the application filed by petitioner holding that, as per M.E. No. 521 dated 25th March 1975 in Kabjedar column No. 9, it is shown as "sarakara" and therefore, rejected the request of petitioner for registration of occupancy rights. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by and Land Tribunal, Bijapur dated 23rd September 1981, petitioner filed the Writ Petition No. 25385/1981 before this Court. In view of the amendment brought to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and upon constitution of the Appellate Authority, the said writ petition was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur and the same was numbered as LRA.(TR). 15/1986. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority, after conducting enquiry as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority Rules and after considering the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, by assigning cogent and valid reasons, has dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner, by its order dated 6th July 1988. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur, as referred above, petitioner - tenant herein felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition.
3. When this matter had come up for consideration before this Court on 29th August 2007, I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents for considerable length of time. At that stage, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted vehemently that, the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur cannot be sustained on the ground that, the appellate authority without appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and the relevant material available on file, has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Further she vehemently submitted that, she herself has gone through the original records on the earlier occasion when the matter had come up for consideration before this Court and that, the said case had been subsequently dismissed for non prosecution twice on 8th June 2004 and subsequently, it has been restored to file. In order to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the submission made by learned Counsel for petitioner, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 to secure the entire original records on the file of the Land Tribunal, Bijapur and on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur and posted the matter on 3rd September 2007. Today, the matter is posted for consideration of the entire original records on the file of the Land Tribunal, Bijapur and Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur, made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
5. After careful evaluation of the entire original records made available by learned Additional Government Advocate, threadbare, and after perusal of the orders passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the Land Tribunal, Bijapur, it is manifest on the face of the said orders that, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority has not committed any error of law or material irregularity. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file has specifically recorded cogent and valid reasons for such rejection of the claim made by the petitioner and specifically referred that, the case of petitioner is that, the land in question has been leased out by third respondent, now represented by his LRs in favour of Sugar Factory for a period of thirty years. When petitioner seeks such claim of tenancy, then it was for him to prove that, he was inducted in the land lawfully by the owner and thus, he can claim the occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act. From the available material, it emerges that, petitioner's name appears in the record of lights only to an extent of 01 acre 10 guntas and there is no corresponding Mutation entry for having been inducted by the third respondent in respect of the land in question in the capacity of a tenant. Therefore, in the absence of a person being inducted in the land in the capacity of a tenant, he will not be entitled to claim the occupancy rights merely on the basis of the entries appearing in the records of rights in his name. Further, the said Appellate Authority has evaluated that, no doubt, there is a presumption of correctness of entries appearing in the record of rights under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 until the contrary to the same is proved. Therefore, from the available material, it is seen that, the Sugar Factory has categorically disowned that, petitioner cultivated any portion of the land in the capacity as a tenant and that, the petitioner claiming his tenancy rights under the third respondent has failed to establish that, at any time, he has taken the land on lease from the deceased third respondent, now represented by his legal representatives. The petitioner, except making oral statements, has not produced any authenticated document as such to establish that, he was cultivating the said land at the relevant point of time, namely from 1970-71 to 1973-74. Therefore, it is well established that, petitioner was not cultivating the land in question at the relevant point of time, i.e. as on 1st March 1974. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file has categorically held that, petitioner has failed to establish that, he was cultivating the said land as on 1st march 1974. The said reasoning and finding recorded by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority is on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Therefore, interference by this Court in the said order is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds or substance in the submission made by learned Counsel for petitioner.
6. In view of the well considered order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant documentary evidence available on file, interference by this Court in the said order is also not justifiable nor I find any good grounds for interference.
7. Yet another reason as to why interference in the impugned order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority is not justifiable and the revision petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed at threshold itself is, having regard to the conduct of the petitioner. It is significant to note that, it is specific case of the learned Counsel for petitioner that, petitioner has filed the Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of an extent of 08 acres in Sy. No. 27/2 and he has been cultivating the said land as tenant and that, his name is found in the RTC extract for an extent of 08 acres and this fact is true since learned Counsel for petitioner herself has seen in the original records when they were available before this Court before transfer of these records to the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur District, in view of the dismissal of the said appeal for non prosecution and subsequently, it has been restored to file. In view of insistence of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and also to find out the veracity or otherwise of her submission, in the interest of justice and to safeguard the interest of petitioner, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure the entire original records on the file of the Land Tribunal, Bijapur and the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur. After microscopic evaluation of the entire original records made available by learned Additional Government Advocate, it emerges that, petitioner has in fact, filed Form No. 7 under Rule 19 (1) of the Rules on 21st November 1974 and his claim in the said Form No. 7 is only in respect of an extent of 04 acres of land in question and he has stated in the said Form No. 7 that, he is cultivating the said land since 16 years. The said Form No. 7 filed by petitioner on 21st November 1974 is found in the original records at ink page.34. From the said Form No. 7, it can also be seen that, in relevant column left to show the "period for which applicant has been cultivating the land as tenant", it is written as "The applicant cultivating 4 acres of the said land since about 16 years." Further, on perusal of the reverse side of the said Form No. 7 filed by petitioner on 21st November 1974, it can be seen that, in the column left for "Any other particulars, it is written as "The applicant cultivating bearing R.S. No. 27/2 of Kanabur village in the Bijapur. The name of the applicant is shown in the cultivation column of the Record of Rights is only 1 acres 10 guntas. But as a matter of fact the applicant cultivating 4 acres of the above said land. So the name of the applicant may be registered as an occupant to the extent 4 acres." Therefore, from all the above analysis, it can safely be said that, the specific submission made by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is highly misconceived, misleading the Court and compelling the Court to secure the original records on the ground that, she herself has seen in the original records that, petitioner has filed Form No. 7 claiming tenancy in respect of 08 acres of land in question. Therefore, the submission of learned Counsel for petitioner that, petitioner is claiming tenancy in respect of 08 acres of land in question is in poor taste and cannot be accepted for the reason that, the said submission made by her is patently contrary to the relevant original records available on file.
8. Further, it emerges from the original records made available by learned Additional Government Advocate that, in respect of RTC for the agricultural years 1964-65 to 1973-74 and 1974-75,(found at ink pages 63 - 65 of the original records), in kabjedar's column, it is written as "Hanumanth Rangacharya Omkar" and below the same, it is written as "Karnataka Sarkara" (as per Mutation Entry No. 621); in column No. 12 (2), the name of Gangappa Chalavadi is shown as cultivating in respect of an extent of 01 acre 10 guntas but the said entry found in column No. 12(2) is not supported by any entry as such certified by the competent authority to substantiate that, petitioner is claiming the said land on lease basis as a tenant. The said illegal entry found in the record of rights cannot be accepted for the reason that, mere entry in the record of rights will not entitle the petitioner to claim occupancy rights even though there is a presumption of correctness of entries appearing in the record of rights as per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said entry must be made on the basis of the order passed by the competent authority. This fact has been elaborately considered and discussed by the Appellate Authority and recorded a specific finding at paragraph 6, internal pages 14, 15 and 22 of its order. Therefore, the categorical submission made by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner cannot be accepted and the said submission is made only on the basis of the presumption and assumption and much contrary to the relevant records available on the file of the Appellate Authority. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has even gone to the extent of compelling this Court to secure the original records to substantiate her submission. However, upon critical evaluation of entire original records coupled with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it emerges that, the submission of learned Counsel has no substance and is made on a false footing.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant LRRP is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.