Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunals ejecting the Form No. 7 filed by him.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1(a) and also the learned Government Pleader and perused the records of the case.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a chalageni tenant of the land in question which is Sy.No. 92/1A and that respondent No. 1 is the mulageni tenant and from respondent No. 1 he has taken the lease rights and has become the chalageni tenant. He filed Form No. 7. As his Form No. 7 was rejected by the Tribunal on earlier occasion, he preferred W.P.No. 11.3335/79 and this Court holding that the order challenged in this case was not preceded by a proper enquiry, set aside the order and remanded the case to the Tribunal for disposal of the applications of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 after holding common enquiry. In that order, this Court had also held that it was open to respondent-1 to raise the preliminary issue before the Tribunal that the land is not an agricultural land within the meaning of Section 2(A)(18) of the K.L.R. Act.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1(a) submitted that the impugned order itself discloses both the numbers given to the Forms No. 7 filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1. Merely because the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the order it cannot be held that there was no common enquiry as directed by this Court; that even the Form No. 7 filed by the respondent No. 1 came to be rejected, the petitioner has not produced any documents or any evidence to show that he has been granted lease rights either by respondent No. 1 or her predecessors in title at any time. He is not at all a chalageni tenant. On the basis of this arguments he submitted that the petition may be dismissed.

7. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is cultivating this land as a chalageni tenant since this land was leased by Narasimha Bandarakar to his father as a chalageni tenant in the year 1953. The Tribunal during its visit to the spot has found that the land is used as a play-ground. Some documents are also produced in this proceedings which go to show that some District Level sports are also conducted on this land in the year 1985 onwards. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the local inspection of the Tribunal is vitiated in law. In my opinion no statements of any witnesses have been recorded by the Tribunal when it visited the spot. The tribunal was within its right to inspect the spot to find as to whether the land continued to be an agricultural land or not. On inspection it has found that the land remained fallow and it was used as a play-ground. So, the fact remains that when the Tribunal visited the land there was no crops and the land was not used as agricultural land.

Therefore, in order to show that a person is entitled to the occupancy rights in a land he must prove that the land is used for agricultural purpose and that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the owner of the land. In other words if the land is an agricultural land and even if a person is in possession of the same, but if he has failed to prove that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the owner of the land, by virtue of either oral agreement or written agreement, such a person cannot be a tenant notwithstanding the fact that he might be in possession of the land and cultivating the same. In this case it is proved that the father of respondent No. 1 Vishalakshi was the moolgeni tenant of this land by virtue of a registered document executed by respondent No. 3 in his favour on 22.9.1916. But it was for the petitioner to prove that his father became the chalageni tenant as Narasimha Bandarkar the grand-father of respondent No. 1 leased the land to him in the year 1953. The burden of proving that there was such an agreement of lease either oral or written between his father and the grand-father of the respondent No. 1 was on the petitioner. But the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that there was any such agreement between his father and the grand-father of respondent No. 1. He has not produced any documents for payment of chalageni either by him or by his father to the grand-father of respondent No. 1 or to respondent No. 1. Even he has not produced any documents to show that he was in possession of the land as a tenant except a mahazar that came to be drawn up in a complaint filed by him. Therefore, it will have to be held that the petitioner has failed to prove that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between his father and the grand-father of respondent No. 1. When a person fails to prove that he is cultivating the land as a tenant, he cannot be granted occupancy rights notwithstanding the fact that he might be in possession of the land and cultivating the same. In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to prove the basic foundation of his case that he is and prior to him his father has been in possession of the land as a tenant by virtue of granting of lease by the grand-father of respondent No. 1, the petitioner could not have been granted occupancy rights in this land.