Karnataka High Court
Shivanandailah S/O Gurulingayya ... vs The Land Tribunal And Ors on 27 July, 2023
Author: B.M. Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M. Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB
WA No. 200101 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M. ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200101/2015(LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVANANDAYA
S/O GURULINGAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL.
R/O CHITTAPUR
TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. KALABURAGI
2. RUDRAYYA S/O GURULINGAYYA HIREMATH
Digitally signed by
SOMANATH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS
PENTAPPA MITTE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2A. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O RUDRAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2B. SAHANA D/O RUDRAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
2C. BHAVANA D/O RUDRAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB
WA No. 200101 of 2015
APPELLANT NO.2C IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER
GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND
APPELLANT NO.2A
APPELLANT NO.2A TO 2C ARE
R/O: CHITTAPUR
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DISTRICT: KALABURAGI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BY ITS SECRETARY AND TAHSILDAR CHITTAPUR
TALUK CHITTAPUR
DIST.KALABURAGI
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE
3. ANAVEERAPPA
S/O CHANNABASAPPA BALA
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC:AGRI
R/O CHITTAPUR
DIST. KALABURAGI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.03.2015
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB
WA No. 200101 of 2015
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
APPEAL NO.36649/2003(LR).
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.06.2023 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, UMESH M. ADIGA, J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition No.36649/2003(LR) challenging the order passed in the said case dated 05.03.2015.
2. For the sake of convenience we refer the parties as per their rank in the writ petition.
3. Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal Siddapur in case No.PÀA.¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ.UÉÃtÂ/12/84-85 dated 30.05.2003 granting occupancy right in favour respondent Nos.2 and 3 in respect of land bearing Survey No.129 of Yargal Village in Chittapur Taluk, measuring 11 acres, under Section 48 of the Land Reforms Act.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB WA No. 200101 of 2015
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is owner of the said land and he has been cultivating the same. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not at all tenants of the said land. However, to gulp the property of the petitioner they have filed false Form No.7. Therefore, they are not entitled for grant of occupancy rights in respect of said land.
5. The contention of respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Land Tribunal was that their father Gurulingayya was tenant of the said land long prior to coming into force the Land Reforms Act. After coming into force the Land Reforms Act, their father filed Form No.7 praying to grant occupancy right. During pendency of hearing of said application, their father has died and they were brought on record as legal heirs and they have been in possession and cultivation of the said land as tenants. They have been paying revenue to the Government, therefore, prayed to grant occupancy rights in their favour.
6. The Tribunal held enquiry. It appears earlier an order was passed by the land Tribunal dated 07.12.1988 rejecting -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB WA No. 200101 of 2015 the claim of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for grant of occupancy right. It was challenged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Appellate Authority, later on that was referred to this Court and it was converted as CP No.23353/1992. This Court after hearing the parties allowed the petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
7. The Land Tribunal after remand of the case, according to the directions of this Court, in the order passed in CP No.23353/1992, heard the matter and granted occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Petitioner had challenged the same before writ Court in WP No.36649/2003. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court, by impugned judgment dated 05.03.2015. The same is challenged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo.
8. we have heard arguments of both side and perused records.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB WA No. 200101 of 2015
9. The learned Advocate for the appellants has vehemently contended that the Tribunal on considering oral and documentary evidence on record, had held that appellant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were tenants of the said land. Form No.11 has to be considered by the Land Tribunal after passing of the orders on Form No.7. Both the forms have to be considered independently. Form No.11 submitted is still pending for consideration. The writ Court without considering the same and only on the basis of information furnished in the said document, set aside the Land Tribunal's order which is erroneous. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
10. The learned Advocate for respondent No.3/writ petitioner has submitted that while filing the Form No.11 it is a duty of a tenant to submit all the properties held by him whether as an owner or as a mortgager or tenant etc. However, in Form No.11 appellants did not mention any such particulars pertaining to the land in question. It clearly indicates that they were not tenant of the said land and was not in possession of the same. Under these -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB WA No. 200101 of 2015 circumstances the writ Court rightly considered the same and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders of the Land Tribunal. There is no illegality in the said findings. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. It appears that it is 3rd round of litigation in respect of claim of grant of occupancy right. The Land Tribunal in the detailed order dated 30.05.2003, which was impugned, in writ petition, had discussed the facts elaborately. The Land Tribunal had recorded the evidence of the witnesses. On going through the said evidence, it appears both the parties have lead the evidence of witnesses in support of their respective cases. The said oral evidence do not help to consider the case of both side and hence not of much importance. Admittedly, prior to 1974, name of appellants were not mentioned in the RTC as a tenant.
12. Appellants examined one Bhimsen Rao Patwari before the Land Tribunal, who appears to be a Revenue Officer. According to his evidence since the appellants and their father did not apply for entering their names in the revenue -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB WA No. 200101 of 2015 records, no entries were made in the name of father of the appellant or the appellants and such entry was made only during the year 1983 in Column No.12(2) of Record of Rights. But in the cross-examination, he admits that even during 1983 appellants have not filed any application to enter their names in the revenue records, however, he entered the names of appellants in the RTC. He pleaded ignorance of law that after 1974 i.e., after coming into force the Land Reforms Act, no entry could be made as tenant in the revenue records. It is also stated that as per the Land Revenue Code, the names of persons who cultivate lands would be mentioned in revenue records and crops grown by such persons are mentioned in Column No.12(2) of ROR. Such information were entered in the revenue records by the Revenue Officer after physically inspecting the lands. He also admits that even in ROR, in respect of Survey No.129, the Revenue Officials might have entered the names of the persons who were cultivating land and reaping crops during respective period. Till 1983 both in column of "owner" as well "possessor" i.e., Column Nos.9 and 12(2) of ROR, name -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB WA No. 200101 of 2015 of respondent No.3 is entered. The said oral and documentary evidence corroborates case of respondent No.3 herein that he has been in possession and cultivation of disputed land.
13. In addition to that, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, in Form No.11 submitted by the father of appellants along with Form No.7, there is no reference about land in question i.e., Survey No.129 measuring 11 acres though other 5 lands said to be held by the appellants, are mentioned. There is no proper explanation for not mentioning of the property in dispute in the said Form No.11. Form No.11 would be filed under Chapter-IV and Sections 63 to 69 of Land Reforms Act. Under Section 63 of Land Reforms Act all the lands held by the person as land owner, landlord or tenant or as a mortgagee with possession or otherwise or partly in one capacity and partly in another are to be mentioned in form No.11. Therefore, if really appellants and their father were tenants, they ought to have mentioned the same in the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB WA No. 200101 of 2015 Form No.11 i.e., the particular of the land in question. Therefore, appellants were not able to establish before the Land Tribunal that they were tenants of the land in question prior to coming into force the Land Reforms Act.
14. The writ Court weighed the material available on record and rightly held that appellants have not proved that they are tenants of disputed land. We do not find any error in the said findings.
15. The appellants contrary to the material available on record, have contended in the appeal memo that they and their father had not at all filed Form No.11, which is found in the record. It appears during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued contrary to the said ground. He concedes that Form No.11 was filed along with Form No.7, but both the Forms have to be considered separately and independently. Only after considering Form No.7, the Form No.11 has to be considered. The said submission is not tenable. The
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB WA No. 200101 of 2015 question is not when both the forms has to be considered, on the contrary why appellant did not mention the particulars of land in question in Form No.11, if really they and their father were tenants and in possession of said lands.
16. In addition to that Form No.11 available in the file is certified copy. Both Form Nos.7 and 11 were appears to be filed on the same day i.e., 30.12.1974. It appears while arguing the case before the writ Court, the appellants have not denied filing of Form No.11 before the Land Tribunal/Revenue Authority.
17. The writ Court has considered the facts of the case and rightly held that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, Chittapur in case No. PÀA.¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ.UÉÃtÂ/12/84-85 dated 30.05.2003 is not tenable. Hence, set aside the same.
18. We do not find any error in the said findings to interfere. Accordingly, we pass the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5919-DB
WA No. 200101 of 2015
ORDER
i. Appeal is dismissed.
ii. The impugned order in WP
No.36649/2003(LR) dated 05.03.2015
is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22