Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Brief facts of the case on hand are that:

The land bearing T.S.No.761/2 measuring 29 cents situated at Boloor village, Mangalore Taluk, Mangalore District, is a non-agricultural property. The third respondent herein has filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Land Reforms Act, contending that she was cultivating the said land since more than 22 years. The application filed by respondent No.3 had come up for consideration before the second respondent - Land Tribunal, Mangalore on 22nd January 1981. The Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Rules, has granted occupancy rights in favour of the third respondent holding that, the third respondent appeared personally on 28.10.1980 and gave evidence stating that she obtained said land on "moolgeni" basis and she is paying Rs.7.81 paise "moolgeni" per annum to the original tenant (moolgenidar) of the land in question and she has constructed a house and staying in the land in question and also there are 20 coconut trees and one well and she has produced a receipt for having paid moolgeni to the original tenant and that land in question was an agricultural land as on 1.3.1974 and the said land is a tenanted land and vested in the Government as on 1.3.1974 and further it is observed that, there is neither the name of third respondent nor her mother in RTC records but she has produced moolgeni receipt and she has established that she is a tenant in respect of the land in question and occupancy rights has been registered. Be that as it may. After lapse of more than 27 years, as it is two decades seven years, the appellants herein filed W.P.No.12680/2008, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the second respondent - Land Tribunal dated 22nd January 1981 in proceedings No.LRT 690/1980-81 on the ground that, no notice as such has been issued to the father of the appellants nor the appellants herein, as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and Rules. Therefore, the enquiry conducted and order passed by the Land Tribunal is against dead persons and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives of the deceased father, who is party to the proceedings and culminated in passing the order and such orders cannot be sustained and as soon as he came to know of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, without any delay from the date of knowledge, he has filed a writ petition within limitation period.

6. After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, what emerges is that, it is not in dispute that third respondent has filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights contending that she is cultivating the said land on moolgeni basis. It is also not in dispute that third respondent claimed through her mother as moolgeni tenant and this fact has been admitted by the appellants herein in the writ petition and in view of amendment of the Act, third respondent filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights. Further, it emerges from the original records produced by the Additional Government Advocate that, in fact, notice has been issued in the name of Henri Joseph Lobo, the father of appellants-1 and 2. Thereafter, the said notice was issued to the wife and sons of Henri Joseph Lobo. There is an endorsement from the Peon/Process Server to the effect that, the wife and children have refused to take notice. There was no other option for the Tribunal but to proceed on the basis of the material on record and conduct an enquiry after strict compliance of the Land Reforms Act and Rules and record a finding of fact holding that, the land in question is an irrigated land and is a tenanted land as on 1.3.1974 and vested in the Government and also recorded that, third respondent has produced "moolgeni" receipt for paying the "moolgeni" rent to the original tenant. Thereafter they continued tenancy under the appellants' father Henri Joseph Lobo and also under these appellants. The Tribunal has rightly accepted the case made out by third respondent and registered occupancy rights after conducting enquiry as provided under the provisions of Land Reforms Act and Rules nor the appellants have made out any case to interfere with the order passed by the Land Tribunal on merits, except taking a stand that they have not been served with notice and that the order has been passed exparte. That cannot be accepted because the appellants are well-educated-cum- businessmen and citizens of Mangalore town and it is duty cast on them to follow the proceedings pending before the jurisdictional Courts and Tribunals. After the death of father of appellants, it is duty cast on them to come on record and defend their case. But, they have not chosen to do this exercise. It is significant to note, as rightly pointed by the learned Counsel for third respondent that, in fact, the mother-in-law and husband of third respondent have filed caveat against first appellant herein in respect of Sy.No.761/2 before the Vacation Judge at Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, anticipating appellants may file suit for declaration and injunction and that caveat petition sent by RPAD has been accepted by appellant No.1 in the year 1993. They had the knowledge not in 1981 but had the knowledge only in 1993 and they were aware about the redressal of grievance made by the mother of third respondent's husband in respect of adjacent land, but they have questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 22.1.1981, after more than 27 years.