Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 580 (KAR)

SATYAMURTHY v. SIDDAROODMATH PANCH COMMITTEE

1996-09-30

CHIDANANDA ULLAL

body1996
CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein had originally filed an appeal in No. 216 of 1988 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad. When the said Appellate Authority was abolished the said appeal was transferred to this Court, with the civil petition filed before this Court in No. 1027 of 1990 to call for records and further to treat the same as writ petition, the records in the appeal were called for and received. Therefore, what is before this Court is the said appeal in No. 216 of 1988 in the form of the writ petition. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Srijayakumar S. Patil, the learned Counsel for the first respondent, Smt. Suman Prakash and the learned High Court government Pleader, Sri S. S. Guttal, appearing for respondents 2 and 3. I have pursued the case records of the Land Reforms appellate Authority as well as the Land Tribunal. ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein had originally filed the above appealbe fore the Appellate Authority to challenge the rejection of his claim for grant of occupancy right in respect of 23 acres 39 guntas of land in S. No. 115 of Ayodhya Village, Hubli Taluk. ( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case are:the petitioner's father by name Neelakanta Dundappa Wale was a sub-tenant in respect of the above extent of land for about four years under the registered lease deed on a yearly rental of rs. 560/ -. Thereafter the rental was raised to Rs. 1,0057- and he continued to cultivate the subject land in all for about ten years. The original registered lease deed was in a period of four years. However, the said period of lease by the father of the petitioner was under a Court receiver. It appears that the subject land was under the Court receiver for the period from 1937 to 1950 in view of the fact that a civil suit in O. S. No. 61 of 1929 was pending before the District Judge, Dharwad. However, the said period of lease by the father of the petitioner was under a Court receiver. It appears that the subject land was under the Court receiver for the period from 1937 to 1950 in view of the fact that a civil suit in O. S. No. 61 of 1929 was pending before the District Judge, Dharwad. It appears that there was a dispute regarding the management of the Trust properties including the subject land belonging to Sri Shiddharoodha Swami Math, Hubli, the first respondent herein, and there was a suit under Section 92 of code of Civil Procedure which had culminated in drawing up of a scheme for the Management of the Trust with effect from 1-5-1950 by the District Judge, Dharwad in pursuance of a Court decree in O. S. No. 61 of 1929, whereupon the District Judge, dharwad had nominated the members of the committee and the office bearers to manage the properties of the Math including the above said extent of land for a period of five years in the year 1950 and on 19-6-1951, the respondent 1 had also executed a registered lease deed at the first instance for a period of five years in respect of lease of the subject land to the father of the petitioner, the above said Neelakanta Dundappa Wale. The yearly rental was fixed at Rs. 1,0057- and the lease was in fact after the approval of the District Judge on 27-4-1951 in terms of the scheme of the Management of the Trust drawn by the district Judge referred to above. That after the demise of Neelakanta Dundappa Wale, the petitioner herein had succeeded to the tenancy right and on coming into force of the Land Reforms Act, the petitioner was cultivating the subject land as on appointed date, 1-3-1974 and therefore the petitioner had filed Form No. 7 before the Land tribunal for grant of occupancy right in respect of the lands in question. The first respondent in the year 1981, at the first instance filed the writ petition in W. P. No. 17339 of 1981 before this court as against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 when there was some controversy regarding the service of notice on respondent 1. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent to challenge the grant of occupancy right to the petitioner. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent to challenge the grant of occupancy right to the petitioner. While so allowing the writ petition, this Court directed the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the tenancy proceedings in accordance with law giving opportunity to the parties. Thereafter the third respondent, Land Tribunal, had held fresh enquiry and rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of occupancy right. It is that rejection of the claim by the Land tribunal, the petitioner herein had challenged in the instant writ petition before this Court. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, argued that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner in passing the impugned order is totally illegal for the reason that the petitioner was a tenant within the meaning of Section 2 (34) of the Land Reforms Act. He had pointed out that there was tenancy proceedings between the first respondent and the father of the petitioner, Neelakantappa Dundappa Wale, with the execution of the registered lease deed on 19-6-1951 with due approval of the District Judge on 27-4-1951 in consonance with the scheme for the Management of the Trust drawn by the district Judge and that on the demise of the said Neelakantappa dundappa Wali, the tenancy right was succeeded by the petitioner herein, that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner was on the sole ground that the petitioner's father was originally inducted as a sub-tenant while the subject land was under the Court receiver and that immediately after the expiry of the term of the registered lease deed the subject land had to revert to the first respondent, that the continuance of the tenancy of the petitioner's father at the first instance was illegal and that, that being the position, the continuance of the petitioner on the demise of his father, Neelakantappa Dundappa wale was also illegal. Sri Patil, also pointed out that the Land tribunal passed the order by applying wrongly the Division bench Ruling of this Court in Ramappa Kadappa Konnur v sangappa Parappa Kavalli1. Sri Patil, also pointed out that the Land tribunal passed the order by applying wrongly the Division bench Ruling of this Court in Ramappa Kadappa Konnur v sangappa Parappa Kavalli1. ( 6 ) IT is to be added here that the learned Counsel for the petitioner had also filed an application before this Court to produce the original lease deed dated 19-6-1951 executed by the managing Committee of the respondent 1-Trust after the scheme of the Management of the Trust was drawn up by the District judge. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, had also produced at the instance of the Court a xerox copy of the scheme for Management of the Trust of the respondent 1 dated 1-5-1950 drawn by the District Judge, dharwad, referred to above. Sri Patil, had also submitted that the tenancy of the petitioner's father, Neelakantappa Dundappa wale and after his demise, the tenancy of the petitioner herein cannot be therefore called as illegal. He had also drawn my attention to the pahani entries from the year 1968-69 in the name of the petitioner's father, Neelakantappa Dundappa Wale and thereafter in the name of the petitioner himself from 1970-71 to 1986-87 and further the assessment receipts in good number for tax paid by the petitioner in respect of the subject land. He had also taken me through the evidence tendered by the petitioner before the Land Tribunal. He therefore submitted that the impugned order is bad and is liable to be quashed by this Court. He had also submitted that the matter to be remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to it for grant of occupancy right to the petitioner. ( 8 ) IT is relevant to mention here that the first respondent had not filed counter to the writ petition and further the counter to la. filed by the petitioner to produce the registered lease deed dated 19-6-1951. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent 1, Smt. Suman Prakash, submitted that the lease deed in question was not produced before the Land Tribunal and that being the position, the petitioner cannot rely upon the same before this Court. Any way, she did not dispute as to the drawing up of the scheme for management of the respondent 1-Trust as per the copy made available to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Any way, she did not dispute as to the drawing up of the scheme for management of the respondent 1-Trust as per the copy made available to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. While supporting the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, Smt. Suman Prakash, submitted that when the very tenancy was for a specific period of four years that too under sub-lease under a lessee who in turn was lessee under the Court receiver, the continuance of the petitioner's father, Neelakantappa Dundappa Wale at the first instance and after his demise the continuance of the petitioner himself by cultivating subject land was illegal and therefore she argued that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was just and proper not to be interfered with by this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the arguments addressed by both sides as above, the points for my consideration are: (i) Whether the petitioner was a tenant as on 1-3-1974 under the first respondent-Trust within the meaning of Section 2 (34) of the Land Reforms Act? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to for grant of occupancy right in the hands of the Land Tribunal or not and when the impugned order passed by the Land tribunal is just and proper? i answer the points as follows: regarding point No. 1: The petitioner was inducted as tenant by the respondent 1-Trust by a registered lease deed on 19-6-1951, wherein the first respondent was granted with lease hold right on the subject land for a period of five years on a yearly rental of Rs. 1,005/ -. The copy of the registered lease deed is also produced by the petitioner herein before this Court. The relevant para of the registered lease deed reads as follows: from what is extracted from the registered lease deed as above, it is clear that the petitioner's father was inducted as a lawful tenant with effect from 19-6-1951 and the said lease was also approved earlier by the District Judge on 27-5-1951 as provided for in Clause 60 in Chapter VIII of the scheme of the Management of the Trust, for the said clause provided therein that all the leases of the agricultural land for more than three years of the respondent 1-Trust could be made only with the previous sanction of the District Judge. That being the position, the earlier sub-lease in the name of the petitioner's father through the court receiver is of no consequence and a relief to the respondent 1-Trust to contend before the Land Tribunal that the induction of the petitioner's father, Neelakantappa Dundappa Wale at the first instance and continuance of the petitioner as a tenant after his demise was illegal. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner was lawful tenant as on 1-3-1974 within the meaning of Section 2 (34) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. ( 10 ) REGARDING point No. 2: The petitioner had produced voluminous records particularly the pahanies right from the 1969-70 to 1985-86 before the Land Tribunal wherein the name of the petitioner's father, Neelakantappa Dundappa Wale and further the petitioner himself were described as cultivators of the subject land on tenancy basis under the first respondent. They had also produced the rental receipt duly issued by the respondent 1 in pursuance of the agreement of lease executed by them. He had also produced tax receipts issued by the Revenue authorities for the payment of tax on the subject land; apart from that he had also adduced his side of the oral evidence in support of his case. The evidence produced by the petitioner both oral and documentary, therefore, is in consonance with his case in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy right. To turn to the evidence of the respondent 1 it can be said that nothing worth was produced by them before the Land tribunal to controvert the case of the petitioner for grant of occupancy right. It is here the scheme for Management of the respondent-1-Trust and further a copy duly registered lease deed dated 19-6-1951 referred to above assume greater importance in view of the fact that the same are not disputed by the respondent 1 at all. ( 11 ) IN view of the voluminous evidence produced before the Land Tribunal by the petitioner, my considered view is that the petitioner is entitled to for grant of occupancy right by the Land tribunal and therefore the rejection of the claim by the Land tribunal is not justified. ( 11 ) IN view of the voluminous evidence produced before the Land Tribunal by the petitioner, my considered view is that the petitioner is entitled to for grant of occupancy right by the Land tribunal and therefore the rejection of the claim by the Land tribunal is not justified. It appears to me that the Land tribunal wrongly applied the ruling of a Division Bench of this court in Ramappa Kadappa Konnur's case, supra, to the instant case of the petitioner to reject the claim of the petitioner. The set of facts in the case in hand and the set of fact in the said reported decision are totally different and therefore the question of application of Division Bench ruling of this Court to the instant case of the petitioner is not just and proper. Hence, I answer point 2 that the petitioner is entitled to for grant of occupancy right by the Land Tribunal and that the rejection of that claim by the Land Tribunal in passing the interim order is not just and proper. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, I am inclined to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order holding that the Land tribunal would have granted the occupancy right to the petitioner as claimed by him in Form No. 7 in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 13 ) IN the result, the impugned order dated 30-4-1988 passed by the third respondent, Land Tribunal, Hubli, whereby the land Tribunal had rejected the claim of the petitioner in respect of 23 acres 39 guntas in Ayodhya village, Hubli Taluk, is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal. The land Tribunal is directed to pass considered order afresh in the light of the above observation of this Court in the matter of grant of occupancy right to the petitioner, of course after issuing notices to the parties for their appearance. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed, rule made absolute. In view of the above order, the office is directed to return the original records of the Land Tribunal now on the case file of this court to the Land Tribunal, Hubli, at an early date. --- *** --- .