Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 13 (KAR)

MANJAPPA v. LAND TRIBUNAL, SHIMOGA

1977-01-28

BHEMIAH

body1977
( 1 ) THIS is a owner's writ petition challenging the order passed by the land Tribunal, Shimoga Taluk, granting occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent in Survey No. 227 measuring 4 acres of Harobenavalli village in Shimoga Taluk. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is as follows: Originally this land was an inam land One Someshwara Sastry was the Inamdar. He died leaving behind him two sons viz Gunda Sastry and Rama Sastry. Rama Sastry died leaving behind him his son Somanath and his wife respondent-3. ( 3 ) THIS land was vested in the Government on 2-10-1956 under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (to be hereinafter called the Inams Abolition Act ). After the date of vesting the 2nd respondent preferred a claim before the Special Deputy commissioner for Inams Abolition, Shimoga alleging that he was the tenant of the land. The Special Deputy Commr by his order dated 9-8-1958 rejected the claim of the 2nd respondent in respect of Sy No. 227. The 3rd respondent was registered as an occupant of the land. Thus the 3rd respondent and her son became the owners. They sold the above said sy number to the 4th respondent under a registered sale deed on 1-7-1968. The 2nd respondent agitated his claim of tenancy in a litigation between him and the 4th respondent. There was a compromise between the 4th and the 2nd respondents. Pursuant to the said compromise the 4th respondent sold the land in Sy. No. 227 to the 2nd respondent for a sum of rs. 2,000 as per Ext. 'a'. On the same day the 2nd respondent sold the land in Sy. No. 227 to the 5th respondent for a sum of Rs. 3,000 and on the same day he purchased Sy. Nos. 226 and 237, of which he was registered as a tenant by the Special-Deputy Commr for Inams, Shimoga. The 5th respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner in the month of June, 1973, agreeing to sell the land in Sy. No. 227 for Rs. 7,000 and the petitioner was put in possession of the land. The sale deed could not be executed in view of the Mysore Agricultural Land (Prohibition and alienation) Ordinance, 1973 (to be hereinafter called as the 'ordinance' ). No. 227 for Rs. 7,000 and the petitioner was put in possession of the land. The sale deed could not be executed in view of the Mysore Agricultural Land (Prohibition and alienation) Ordinance, 1973 (to be hereinafter called as the 'ordinance' ). hereafter the 5th respondent executed a mortgage deed in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7,000 on 9th July 1973, as per Ext. 'c'. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, gave direction for entering the name of the petitioner in the pahani register for 1973-74 as per Ext. 'f'. Ever since, the petitioner has been in possession of the land. His name is entered in the rtc during the year 1973-74 and 1974-75 as per Exhibit 'f-1'. The 2nd respondent made an application in Form No. 7 under S. 48a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to be hereinafter called the 'act') for grant of occupancy rights in his favour in respect of Sy. No. 227. He did not implead the 5th respondent as party. The Tribunal conducted the enquiry and recorded the statements of respondents 2, 3 and 4 and granted occupancy rights in Sy. No. 227 in favour of the 2nd respondent as per Ext. 'f'. The petitioner has challenged this order. ( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. Kadidal Manjappa, learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the 2nd respondent for registration of occupancy rights in sy. No. 227 as the 2nd respondent had become the owner of the land as per Ext. 'a' and sold the same to the 4th respondent. Further the contention of Mr. Kadidal Manjappa is that the pahanies for the year 1974- 75 do not disclose the name of the 2nd respondent, and as such the 2nd respondent had failed to prove that he was in possession and cultivating the land immediately prior to 1-3-1974 as tenant. Further, Mr. Manjappa contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the sale deeds in respect of the above survey number are void is a finding given without jurisdiction. Further, Mr. Manjappa contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the sale deeds in respect of the above survey number are void is a finding given without jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THE contention on behalf of the 2nd respondent is that he was a tenant of the land in question and the sale deed was obtained from him under fraudulent circumstances and the said sale deeds conferred no right on the 4th and 5th respondents and that he continued to be the tenant of the land and, therefore, the Land Tribunal is justified in granting the occupancy rights in his favour. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has held that the sale deeds were got executed under fraudulent circumstances without passing of any consideration and, therefore, they are void and confer no right either on the 4th or the 5th respondents. It further held that the 2nd respondent is a tenant cultivating the land and therefore in that view of the matter granted occupancy rights. Duties of the Land Tribunal are enumerated in Section 112 (B) of the Act. It reads thus :" (a) to make necessary verification or hold an enquiry and pass orders in cases relating to registration of a tenant as occupant under section 48a; (b) to decide whether a person is a tenant or not; (c) to grant surplus land under Section 77; (d) to perform such other duties or functions as are imposed on the Tribunal under the provisions of this Act or under any rule made thereunder. "section 45a of the Act , deals with enquiry by the Tribunal. The enquiry contemplated under this Section is for the registration of occupancy rights as contemplated under S. 44 of the Act. This Section deals with lands held by or in possession of the tenants immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. Under S. 45 of the act, every person who was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant has lawfully sublet, such sub-tenant shall with effect on and from the date of vesting be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of the lands of which he was a tenant of the description stated above and which land he has been cultivating personally. ( 7 ) FROM a reading of these sections referred to above, it is clear, that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with and determine disputes relating to title to lands by rival owners. If Land Tribunal deals with the dispute between the owners and determines their rights, it will be without jurisdictiqn and amounts to the exercise of lack of power. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal that the sale deeds executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent in favour of the 5th respondent are void is a finding given by the Tribunal without jurisdiction and, therefore, the finding cannot be sustained. Further, there was no evidence before the Land Tribunal to reach the conclusion that the 2nd respondent was the tenant of the land in question. The learned Special Deputy Commr for Inams Abolition had decided this question in respect of Sy. No. 227, against the 2nd respondent and registered occupancy rights in the name of the 4th respondent. Though this evidence was before the Tribunal, it has ignored that evidence. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that after the occupancy rights were regis tered in the name of the 4th respondent, he became a tenant under her. He has set up his tenancy under the Inamdar. Further, as pointed out by mr. Kadidal Manjappa, the revenue records like the Record of Rights and the Pahanies did not support the claim of the 2nd respondent to prove that on the date of vesting he was a tenant cultivating the land in Survey no. 227. The oral evidence in the case was discrepant. Inspite of such a state of evidence the Land Tribunal has reached the conclusion that the 2nd respondent was the tenant of the land. It is not possible to sustain that finding. Even assuming that there was litigation between the 4th and the 2nd respondents with regard to recovery of rents for the years 1956 to 1964 that may lead to an inference of tenancy, the purchase of the land in Sy. No. 227 by the 2nd respondent from the 4th respondent in the year 1973 put an end to the tenant and owner relationship between the 2nd and the 4th respondents. Further, execution of the other sale deed viz, Ext. No. 227 by the 2nd respondent from the 4th respondent in the year 1973 put an end to the tenant and owner relationship between the 2nd and the 4th respondents. Further, execution of the other sale deed viz, Ext. 'b' by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 5th respondent clearly establishes that the 2nd respondent sold the land to the 5th respondent as a owner on receipt of consideration of Rs. 3,000. It may be stated that out of Rs. 3,000 he purchased two other survey numbers viz, 226 and 237 of which he was a tenant and became a full owner. Therefore, in any view of the matter, it is not possible to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the 2nd respondent was entitled for the registration of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No. 227. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the impugned order is quashed. Writ petition allowed. No costs. Two weeks to file memo of appearance by G. P. --- *** --- .