Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1980 DIGILAW 115 (KAR)

BANASHANKARI DEVASTHAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1980-06-04

N.R.KUDOOR

body1980
( 1 ) IN this writ petition, notice regarding rule was issued in the first instance. In pursuance of the notice, respondents 3 and 4 who are the only contesting respondents in this writ peitition entered appearance through their Advocate. Records of the proceedings of the Tribunal have also been secured. ( 2 ) THIS Writ Petition, one under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8-10-1976 at Ex-'c' passed by the 2nd respondent Land Tribunal, Hubli, conferring occupancy in respect of the suit lands of which the petitioner is the owner in favour of respondents 3 and 4. ( 3 ) THE order impugned is based on the statement made by Mallarappa ningappa Thurkani, the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-temple conceding the tenancy of the claimants and also the entries in the Record of Rights which stood in the names of the claimants before the tribunal. The Tribunal recorded its findings in Sx-'c' after holding an enquiry in accordance with law. Thus, it seems to me that the petitioner in the case cannot attack the validity of the order impugned on merits. ( 4 ) SRI Umesh Malimath, learned advocate for the petitioner in the course of his arguments, contended that since the petitioner who was the owner of the suit lands was a religious institution, respondents 3 and 4 are not entitled for the relief under the provisions of the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1961 as amended by Act 1 of 1974 (for short 'the Act') in view of the provisions contained in S. 107 as it stood prior to the Amendment Act 1 of 1974 which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act'. He further contended that the petitioner herein initiated proceedings against respondent 3 before the amendment Act came into force, terminated his tenancy, instituted a suit for eviction and obtained a decree. On these grounds he maintained that respondents 3 and 4 are not entitled for the relief that was allowed to them by the Land Tribunal under the provisions of the Act. ( 5 ) HAVING carefully considered this argument, in the light of the provisions contained in the Act and also the provisions of S. 107 as it stood prior to the Amendment Act, I am constrained to observe that there is no force in this contention. ( 5 ) HAVING carefully considered this argument, in the light of the provisions contained in the Act and also the provisions of S. 107 as it stood prior to the Amendment Act, I am constrained to observe that there is no force in this contention. It is stated that the petitioner issued a notice terminating the tenancy of the third respondent (it may be noted , that respondents 3 and 4 are brothers) as per a notice dated 30-8-1971. Thereupon, he instituted a suit in O. S. No. 217/72 on the file of the Principal munsiff, Hubli, for possession of the suit lands and obtained a decree on 19-9-1973. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that he had obtained possession of the suit" lands from the third respondent in pursuance of the decree obtained by him from the Civil Court which was prior to the coming into force of the amendment Act. Further, in this case, there is positive proof that the third respondent continued to be in possession of the suit lands notwithstanding the fuct of the decree passed by the civil Court, on 1-3-1974, the date on which the Amendment Act came into force ( 6 ) IN this context, It 3s useful to refer to the relevant portion of S. 44 which reads thus:"all lands held by or in the possession of tenants (including the tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction. . . . . . is made) immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment act,. . . . . . shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State government. " ( 7 ) IN the instant case, on the material available in the case, the third respondent was in possession of the suit lands on 1-3-1974 and in that view of the matter the lands which were in his possession, vested in the State government under S. 44. The Tribunal after holding an enquiry granted occupancy in favour of respondents 3 and 4 who are brothers on the statement made by the third respondent that he and hig brother were cultivating the suit lands jointly, holding that they were entitled to be registered as occupants under S. 45 of the Act. The Tribunal after holding an enquiry granted occupancy in favour of respondents 3 and 4 who are brothers on the statement made by the third respondent that he and hig brother were cultivating the suit lands jointly, holding that they were entitled to be registered as occupants under S. 45 of the Act. Thus, the contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that respondents 3 and 4 were not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the act in view of S. 107 as it stood prior to the Amendment Act is clearly unsustainable. ( 8 ) SRI Umesh Malimath then drew my attention to two documents produced by him Exts- 'a' and 'b' along with his writ petition and urged that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be a valid order. ( 9 ) EXT-'a' is an application filed by the petitioner herein on 11-5-1977 making certain averments therein and requesting the Tribunal to permit him to file written statement. Ex-'b' is a statement made by the other members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-temple dated 15-10-1978. Both these petitions were filed before the Tribunal after the Tribunal tendered its decision as per Ext-'c'. Once the Tribunal renders its decision on an application made by a claimant in Form 7 under S. 48-A (l) of the act, the Tribunal ceased to have any further jurisdiction to consider the averments made in Exts-'a' and 'b'. Both of them were post-dated events, after the Tribunal rendered its impugned order. ( 10 ) AS regards the other allegations made in Ext-'a' regarding recording of the statement of the petitioner in the course of the enquiry by the Tribunal, I find absolutely no basis whatsoever for sustaining those allegations. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Tribunal in Kannada and the petitioner has signed that statement in Kannada. Thus, I find no merit in this contention also. ( 11 ) ON a consideration of the relevant materials connected with this case, I see no ground to issue any rule. Accordingly, I decline to issue rule and dismiss the writ petition. ( 12 ) THERE is no order as to costs. --- *** --- .