Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 272 (KAR)

NARASAPPA v. SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA ODEYAR

2001-03-22

R.GURURAJAN

body2001
GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) 1. THIS petition is filed by one Sri Narasappa and Cheluvappa sons of Narasimhaiah claiming to be the tenants challenging the order dated 20. 12. 88 in appeal No. 46/87 on the file of the Appellate authority, Mandya and the order dated 8. 5. 87 in RT No. 245/76-77 of the land Tribunal, Srirangapatna in so for as disallowing the claim of occupancy rights in so for as 3 acres 18 guntas in sy. no. 364 of srirangapatna village with costs. ( 2 ) FACTS: The lands in sy. no. 364 measuring 7 acres 30 guntas is situated in Srirangapatna taluk. The said lands belong to Sri srikantadatta Narasimharaja Odeyar (for short:erstwhile Maharaja of mysore ). One Suryanarayana Rao son of Subbarama Rao was the owner of the lands in sy. no. 362/1 and 365/1 of Srirangpatna grandfather, father and mother of the petitioners were in possession and cultivation of lands as tenants of erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore and Suryanarayana Rao. Smt. Chennamma mother of the petitioner was the tenant of the said iands. She was in possession and occupation of the lands in Sy. No. 362/1 measuring 36 guntas, 7 acres and 36 guntas in Sy. No. 364, and 3 acres 29 guntas in sy. no. 365 as on 1. 3. 74. In view of their occupation and cultivation of lands as tenants an application under Section 48 (A) in form 7 was filed before the land tribunal, Srirangapatna seeking for occupancy rights of lands in these survey numbers. The Maharaja and Suryanarayana Rao did not object with regard to these lands being tenanted as on 1. 3. 74. The land tribunal got the tenanted lands measured through a surveyor. According to the survey sketch as per petition averments chennamma mother of the petitioner was found to be in possession of 6 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No. 364 in addition to the lands in sy. No. 362 and 365. Chennamma died during the pending of the proceedings and the petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives. Evidence was recorded before land tribunal. The land tribunal by its order dated 8. 5. 87 granted 3 acres 13 guntas in sy. No, 364. The claim in respect of Sy. No. 362 and 365 was rejected the registration of occupancy nghts in respect of Sy. Evidence was recorded before land tribunal. The land tribunal by its order dated 8. 5. 87 granted 3 acres 13 guntas in sy. No, 364. The claim in respect of Sy. No. 362 and 365 was rejected the registration of occupancy nghts in respect of Sy. No. 362 and 365 was ordered in favour of Honnaiah son of Honnaiah. The land tribunal also ruled that an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 364 was not cultivable and hence the same was not tenanted. The evidence before the tribunal reveal that there was an agreement between the Maharaja and one Smt. Yvette Karsey Zarfaz under which Scot's Bungalow and surrounding areas were agreed to be sold to a foreign national. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the rejection of the lands in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners filed an appeal to the land Reforms appellate Authority, Mandya. The Appellate Authority, Mandya, vide its order dated 20. 12. 88 while granting occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 362/1 and 365 dismissed the appeal against the rejection of 4 acres 20 guntas in respect of Sy. No. 364. The Appellate Authority ruled that an extent of 3 acres 18 guntas in Sy. No. 364 covering the scot Bungalow and the surrounding areas were not tenanted land and on that basis, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by this rejection petitioners moved this Court by way of revision petition against the order dated 20. 12. 88 passed in appeal no. 46/ 87. In this petition several grounds have been raised in support of the rejection. ( 4 ) NOTICE was ordered by this Court. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT 4 filed an impleading application and was allowed to be brought on record. Objection statement was filed by the impleading applicant. In the objection statement it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief and according to her the petitioners were never in possession of 7 acres 36 guntas in sy. No. 364 is concerned, they filed amendment application to form 7 claiming only 6 acres 17 guntas on 13. 3. 79 Respondent further stated that the petitoners mother Chennamma filed a suit in OS no. 258/75 on the file of Munsiff, Srirangapatna for permanent injunction and in that plaint she has excluded the bungalow, temple and other buildings. No. 364 is concerned, they filed amendment application to form 7 claiming only 6 acres 17 guntas on 13. 3. 79 Respondent further stated that the petitoners mother Chennamma filed a suit in OS no. 258/75 on the file of Munsiff, Srirangapatna for permanent injunction and in that plaint she has excluded the bungalow, temple and other buildings. She also filed an application for mandatory injunction praying for removal of the surrounding Scot Bungalow and its area. This respondent did file a written statement and contended that plaintiff Chennamma was not in possession of Scot Bungalow and the area of 3 acres 18 guntas is exclusively in possession of this applicant. It is also stated that 4th respondent entered into negotiation with the Maharaja for purchase of Scot Bungalow and premises. After negotiation a sum of Rs. 2500/- was paid on the said date. Palace Authorities put the 4th respondent in possession of 3 acres 18 guntas. There are some fruit yielding coconun tree, mango tree, jackfruit trees. Chennamma was only plucking the fruits. At no point of time Chennamma was in possession of 3 acres 18 guntas. Chennamma never exercised her right or interest over this 3 acres and 18 guntas as tenant. In view of the payment of balance of sale consideration in the year 1963, 4th respondent became an absolute owner of the premises. A formal sale deed was not executed in the year 1963. A sale deed was executed on 4. 4. 79. In the sale deed there is a reference to the sale consideration paid in the year 1963. ( 6 ) PALACE Authorities produced documentary and oral evidence stating that Chennamma, mother of the petitioners was cultivating the land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in sy. no. 364. One Madaiah was cultivating 30 guntas and Kampaiah 4 acres 9 guuntas and 3 acres and 18 guntas was in occupation of respondent 4. Witnesses on behalf of this respondent stated that Chennamma was never a tenant in so for as 3 acres 18 guntas. Both the tribunal and the appellate Authority gave concurrent findings with regard to this piece of land, ( 7 ) THIS respondent further stated that they took permission of RBI and Exchange Control Department to continue to hold the said properties. They also referred to the objection raiced by the sub-registrar srirangapatna with regard to violation of the Act. Both the tribunal and the appellate Authority gave concurrent findings with regard to this piece of land, ( 7 ) THIS respondent further stated that they took permission of RBI and Exchange Control Department to continue to hold the said properties. They also referred to the objection raiced by the sub-registrar srirangapatna with regard to violation of the Act. An appeal came to be filed before the Registrar. But again the sub-registrar raised objection with regard to the permission in terms of Section 81a of the Karnataka land Reforms Act. Action of the sub-registrar was challenged in WPNo. 9265/85. Petition was alloved by the High court. ( 8 ) SRI Sreenivasa Raghavan has argued that the Maharaja of mysore has conceded tenancy in the case on hand. He vehementy contends before me that both the tribunal and the Appellate Authority are wrong in rejecting his case of cultivation of this piece of land. According to him the sketch report, the RBI observations and other documents reveal that the claim of the 4th respondent that this 3 acres cannot be cultivable cannot be accepted. He has taken me through the pleadings in support of his case. He also has referred to various documents filed in the case on hand. He explains the decision of this Court in the Writ Petition No. 28916/92 as being not coming in his way of his contention of cultivation/occupancy rights. ( 9 ) ON the otherhand Sri Nagananda learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent contended before me that material facts would reveal that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. The findings of the land tribunal are confirmed by the Appellate Authority and it is essentially a findings of fact and I should not interfere in a matter like this is his argument. He futher invites my attention to the proceedings of the Tax Recovery Officer, Bangalore, with regard to the Scot's Bungalow. He also invites my attention with regard to the objection raised by the Sub-registrar with regard to this very land on an earlier occasion. The Sub-registrar on an earlier occasion refused to register the deed on the ground of violation of Section 81 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act. In fact he also referred to the pending cases with regard to the tenancy claimed by the petitioner. The Sub-registrar on an earlier occasion refused to register the deed on the ground of violation of Section 81 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act. In fact he also referred to the pending cases with regard to the tenancy claimed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by Sub-Registar's endorsement respondent 4 filed a Writ Petition before this Court in Writ Petition No. 9265'85. Division Bench of this court in a detailed order ruled that the property in question is not an agricultural land primafacie. He also invited my attention to the attempt of the petitioners in dislodging this finding of this Court. Counsel invited my attention to a subsequent Writ Petition filed by the very petitioner in WP No. 28916/92 seeking to review the order dated 15. 6. 92 passed in favour of this respondent in W'p no. 9265/85. The said Writ Petition was dismissed for default by a division bench on 14. 11. 94. An application to recall the said order was filed and the same came to be dismissed by a division bench on 5. 11. 98. Thereafter another IA was filed to recall the order dated 5. 11. 98 and the division bench dismissed the said petition on 24. 5. 99. Counsel contends that the division bench of this Court has given a categorical finding that this piece of land is not cultivable. In addition counsel also refers to various evidence on record. He relies on the decision of this Court in NAGE GOWDA vs BASAVANA GOWDA and ANOTHER. CHIKKABOREGOWDA AND OTHERS vs NANJE gowda AND ANOTHER, Smt. RAJBIR KAUR AND ANOTHER vs M/s. S. CHOKOSIRI AND COMPANY SHER SINGH (dead through IRS) vs JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND others. He says that the subsequent developments with regard to the sale in his favour in terms of the order of this Court is also a matter that requires my consideration. With regard to 16 guntas in terms of sketch Counsel contends that that justice has been done in the case on hand and therefore no relief need be granted. He further invites my attention to various Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner and the results in the other legal battles in the matter. In conclusion he wants the petition to be dismissed. He further invites my attention to various Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner and the results in the other legal battles in the matter. In conclusion he wants the petition to be dismissed. ( 10 ) BEFORE considering the rival pleas I must piace on record the sincere efforts made by the Counsels on either side with regard to their respective pleas. This case involves several complicated questions of fact in the light of earlier proceedings and the documents filed before various Courts. The able assistance rendered to me by both the Counsels viz. , Sri Sreenivasa Raghavan and Sri Naganand is placed on record. ( 11 ) ADMITTED facts reveal that Smt. Chennamma wife of narasimhaiah, Dyanappa son of Kapanaiah, Nanjappa son of kempaiah, Malimraiah son of Madegowda, Honnaiah son of honnaiah and Shivanna son of Kapanaiah were the applicants in case No. LRB/245/76-77. They submitted form No. 7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka land Reforms Act seeking for occupancy rights. Chennamma wife of Narasimaiah claimed 3 acres 20 guntas in sy. No. 362 and 7 acres 36 guntas in Sy. No. 364, Dyanappa and nanjappa both claimed lands in Sy. No. 362 1 acre 15 guntas. Malimraiah claimed 2 acres in Sy. No. 364 , Honnaiah claimed I acre 34 guntas in Sy. No. 362 and 3 acres 29 guntas in Sy. No. 365 and shivanna claimed 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No. 364. All these tenants claimed occupancy rights on the ground that they were the tenants of Maharaja of Mysore. The land tribunal issued notice to all the interested parties and after hearing the parties an order came to be passed. The land tribunal framed 3 issues for its consideration. The first issue being whether the disputed lands are fit for cultivation or not. The second issue is whether these lands are forfeited in favour of Government as on 1. 3. 74, and whether the applicants are entitled to declaration for registration in terms of application. Parties were examined before the land tribunal. The tribunal considered the evidence of Sri Balasundara Bhat on behalf of the Palace. The tribunal on consideration of the evidence came to a conclusion that except Chennamma the other applications have no litigation in respect of these properties. Suryararayana Rao who was the Asst. Commissioner at the relevant point of time was placed ex-parte. The tribunal considered the evidence of Sri Balasundara Bhat on behalf of the Palace. The tribunal on consideration of the evidence came to a conclusion that except Chennamma the other applications have no litigation in respect of these properties. Suryararayana Rao who was the Asst. Commissioner at the relevant point of time was placed ex-parte. Palace authorities appeared before the land tribunal and stated that the lands in Sy. No. 364 is measuring 13 acres 10 guntas, out of which Nanjaiah cultivated 4 acres 9 guntas, Mala Madaiah cultivated 20 guntas, Chennamma cultivated 4 acres 20 guntas remaining and the 3 acres 18 guntas are surrounding area of the Scot's Bungalow. 43 guntas Palace kharab lands have been sold to respondent 4. ( 12 ) IN the light of the material placed before the land tribunal the land tribunal has granted application to the tenants excluding 3 acres 18 guntas on the ground that the said lands are not cultivable and was not actually cultivated by Chennamma. This order was challenged before the Appellate Authority, Mandya. Appeal was only filed by the legal representatives of Chennamma. The others did not challenge the same. The Appellate Authority verified the records and after verification the Appellate Authority rejected the application filed by Honnaiah. The Appellate Authority ruled that 3 acres 18 guntas surrounding Scot's Bungalow cannot be termed as tenanted land under the Act. It confirmed the order insofar as Kapanaiah and male Madaiah in Sy. No. 364. ( 13 ) I must say that both the tribunal as well as the Appellate authority on evidence has come to a categorical concision that the petitioner was not cultivating the entire lands of 6 acres 14 guntas in sy. no. 364 as contended by the petitioners. Both the land -tribunal and the Appellate Authority rery on various pieces of evidence both oral and documentary in coming to this conclusion. I am sitting in revision in terms of my jurisdiction granted under Section 121a of the Karnataka land Reforms Act. no. 364 as contended by the petitioners. Both the land -tribunal and the Appellate Authority rery on various pieces of evidence both oral and documentary in coming to this conclusion. I am sitting in revision in terms of my jurisdiction granted under Section 121a of the Karnataka land Reforms Act. Section 121a of the Act reads as under; "section 121a The High Court may at any time call for the records of any order or proceeding recorded by the Appellate authority under this Act or any other law for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality of such order or as to the regularity of such proceeding and may pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit; provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard. " the said section came for judicial interpretation by various courts. ( 14 ) IN ( AIR 1978 SC 1341 ) Sher Singh vs Joint Director, consolidation, the Supreme Court was considering with regard to the revisional jurisdiction of Director of Consolidation. The Supreme court in para 6 at page 1344 held:. "it is now well settled that the revisional juridiction of the high Court is confined to cases of illegal or irregular exercise or non exercise or illegal assumption of the jurisdiction by the subordinate courts. If a subordinate court is found to possess the jurisdiction to decide a matter, it cannot be said to exercise it illegally or with material irregularity even if it decides the matter wrongly. In other words, it is not open to the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC to correct errors of fact howsoever gross or even errors of law unless the errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the court to try the dispute itself". ( 15 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir Kaur vs m/s. Chokosiri and Company (supra) considered again the powers of the High Court in revisiona! matters in the following words:"when the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of the evidence and tc support a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the Courts below. Therefore, in the in stant case the concurrent finding as to exclusive possession of subtenant was not amenable to reversal in revision by the High Court " ( 16 ) THIS Court in the case of Chikkaboregowda and Others vs nanje Gowda and Another (supra) has considered very scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 121 A, This Court ruled;"while considering appellate powers exorcised by appellate authority, High Court must only look for jurisdictional errors pointed out and not interfere with the order acting as second court of appeal - if High Court is satisfied that appellate authority has discharged its function without an error of law or procedure, merely because on the same evidence it is possible to draw another inference is no ground to interfere with the order under revision". ( 17 ) AGAIN this Court in NANJE GOWDA vs BASAVANA GOWDA and ANOTHER ( 1988 (2) KLJ 334 ) has ruled that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in regard to errors of 'urisdiction or to avoid grossly unjust order. Revisional Court will not sit as a court of Second Appeal. On facts, impugned order not interfered with. ( 18 ) IN the light of these decisions it is clear to me that if the order of the Appellate Authority is just and proper, just because another inference is possible on reassessment of facts that by itself cannot be a ground to interfere with an order under Section 121a of the Act. A party approaching this Court under Section 121a has to show that there is an error of jurisdiction or an exercise of jurisdiction not vested with that authority in law. Let me see as to whether the petitioner has discharged his duty in this regard. In the case on hand the petitioner strongly relies on as I mentioned earlier to the sketch drawn before the tribunal. Sketch shows the scot's Bungalow and the Palace land surrounding the same. No doubt the sketch shows that a portion of the land i. e. 16 guntas is in occupation by the petitioners, that by itself cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the Palace Authorities have stated that whatever the portion they were cultivating the same may be granted to them. No doubt the sketch shows that a portion of the land i. e. 16 guntas is in occupation by the petitioners, that by itself cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the Palace Authorities have stated that whatever the portion they were cultivating the same may be granted to them. Merely because the palace Authorities have stated so, that by itself cannot absolve the duty caste upon the petitioner to show to the statutory authorities regarding his cultivation of a cultivable land as a tenant. In fact the land tribunal considers these very questions and the evidence including receipts placed by the petitioners. After noticing the same the tribunal was of the view that what was cultivated or cultivable was the lands excluding the Scots bungalow and surrounding areas of 3 acre 18 guntas. When this finding is challenged before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate authority further noticed on the basis of the material placed before it that earlier she claimed 7 acres 36 guntas and after the sketch she reduced it to 6 acres 17 guntas. The Appellate Authority noticed that 13 acres 10 guntas is the total extent of land in Sy. No. 364. It also finds that what is cultivated by Chennamma is only 3 acres 10 guntas on evidence. It notices that there are fruit yielding trees and flowers garden covering the Scot's bungalow. The appellate authority also notices that there is no evidence available on record to come to a conclusion with regard to cultivation by Chennamma. The appellate authority also notices boundaries being not mentioned by chennmma. It was in these circumstances the Appellate Authority has granted 3 acre 13 guntas in favour of Chennamma. The said finding is based on the evidence placed before it. When two fact finding authorities on evidence have given concurrent findings of fact that findings cannot be permitted to be set at naught at the instance of an aggrieved party in the absence of any jurisdictional error or a wrong exercise of jurisdiction vested in those authorities by me. Consistently Courts have ruled that Section 121a confers ( 19 ) MR. Sreenivasa Raghavan, also relies on a judgment of this court in the case of KRISHNA BHAT vs I LAND TRIBUNAL, bantwal6 with regard to sketch. That judgment is also clearly distinguishable on facts. Consistently Courts have ruled that Section 121a confers ( 19 ) MR. Sreenivasa Raghavan, also relies on a judgment of this court in the case of KRISHNA BHAT vs I LAND TRIBUNAL, bantwal6 with regard to sketch. That judgment is also clearly distinguishable on facts. lt was a case with regard to a local inspection as I see from the records. Even the sketch shows fruits garden as I see from the record Mr. Sreenivasa Raghavan relies on another judgment of this Court reported in VILAS @ GUNDU ananthacharya vs STATE OF KARNATAKA7 to contend that this court can consider findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. That was a case in which the Court was considering as to whether the finding of the Appellate Authority is contrary to material on record or in case of absence of any evidence supporting the conclusion or when reasons given are perverse unsupported by evidence on record. In the case on hand the Appellate Authority cannot be said to have given any finding based on no evidence or a finding based on an erroneous conclusion. It cannot be said to be a perverse finding as in the case cited above. Therefore that judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. ( 20 ) IN fact the Supreme Court recently in the case of BABY vs travancore DEVASWOM BOARD AND OTHE 85 has ruled that mere non consideration of relevant documents including the relevance of certain judicial proceedings would not strictly fall within Section 103 of the Act as under. "6. But, that in our opinion, is not the end of the matter. The high Court had still powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the orders passed by the tribunal if the findings of fact had been arrived at by non-consideration of the relevant and material documents, the consideration of which could have led to an opposite conclusion- This power of the high Court under the Constitution of India is always in addition to the powers of revision under Section 103 of the Act. " ( 21 ) IN the case on hand the land tribunal has passed an order on 8. 5. 87 and the Appellate Authority has passed the order on 20. 12. 88. ( 22 ) THERE are subsequent developments in the case on hand. " ( 21 ) IN the case on hand the land tribunal has passed an order on 8. 5. 87 and the Appellate Authority has passed the order on 20. 12. 88. ( 22 ) THERE are subsequent developments in the case on hand. The Supreme Court in the decision in AIR 1974 SC 1178 has ruled that the Court can take note of such subsequent event to shorten the litigation and to prevent the multiplicity of proceedings. The said judgment is subsequenly noticed by a division bench of the Calcutta high Court in AIR 1989 Calcutta 190, The Division bench noticed further and ruled that:"it is trite to say that a cause of action lor a (is must precede the lis. But once a lis is so instituted on a pre litem cause of action, the court cannot shut its eyes to, but must take note of; all such post litem development which are likely to affect the question to be determined in the lis. " ( 23 ) PARTIES have also addressed with regard to subsequent developments. The subsequent development is this. When this lis was pending before the land tribunal and Appellate Authority a Writ petition was filed by the respondent 4 in the matter of quashing of the order of Sub-registrar in WP No. 9265/85. The sub registrar refused to register the deed on the ground that the sale deed was in violation of Section 81 of the Act. The sub-registrar also noticed that a case was pending with regard to occupancy rights. The same was challenged in WP No. 9265/85 by Page No. 4 That petition was allowed by a division bench of this Court on 15. 6. 92. Sale Deed was factually registered on 18. 7. 92. The present petitioner filed a writ Peition No. 28916/92 seeking a review of the order dated 15. 6. 92 passed in WP. 9265/85. The said petition was dismissd for default on 14. 11. 94. !a II was filed to recall the said order and the same was again dismissed by an order dated 5. 11. 98, IA III filed by the petitioner was again dismissed on 24. 5. 99. the lecision in WP No. 9265/85 has some bearing on the facts of thid rade. ( 24 ) IT is on record that negotiations were held between the maharaja and the Respondent 4. 11. 98, IA III filed by the petitioner was again dismissed on 24. 5. 99. the lecision in WP No. 9265/85 has some bearing on the facts of thid rade. ( 24 ) IT is on record that negotiations were held between the maharaja and the Respondent 4. After negotiation a sale deed was said to have been entered in to between the parties on 4. 4. 79. When the same was presented before the sub registrar he refused to. register the document and issued an endorsement, in which it was stated that the Transferee has not made declaration in duplicate in terms of Section 81 of the Act. It was further stated that a case was pending before the land tribunal Srirangapatna and the bungalow subject matter of the case was measuring 12 guntas approximately in Sy. No. 364 and the adjacent lands of the bungalow was under cultivation. This endorsement was challenged in WP 9265/85. However, the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings. This court noticed the very contention with regard to the present petitioner cultivating these lands and after noticing in para 4 and 5 and 6 the division bench ruled as under: "4. The respondents were mainly influenced by the fact that the Sy. No. 364 is quite extensive and it should be treated as all land covered by Karnataka land Reforms Act. Section 2 (A) (18) of the land Reforms Act defines land, as the land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purpose subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land etc. but does not includes house site or land used exclusively for non agricultural purposes. 5. In the instant case there can be no doubt that the property in question is mainly used for residential purposes by the erstwhile maharaja. There can also be no doubt that the land appurtinent to the bungalow was also being used for raising trees or for ornamental purposes, or as sports ground, to house security personnel etc. because, one can safely infer that a King"s place of residence (even if it is an occasional one)would have these characteristics. 6. Merely because there are few fruit bearing trees and the land is capable of being used for agricultural purposes the same cannot be treated as agricultural land at all. because, one can safely infer that a King"s place of residence (even if it is an occasional one)would have these characteristics. 6. Merely because there are few fruit bearing trees and the land is capable of being used for agricultural purposes the same cannot be treated as agricultural land at all. The dominent purposes for which the land is being used will have to be considered as the basis before deciding as to whether the land is agricultural land or not. It is common knowledge that even in cities, houses having extensive appurtinent land would be used for horticultural purposes or for raising fruit bearing trees and these are considered as ornamental gadens. In the case of maharaja it will be all the more necessary to have a large extent of land around the building which he uses as his residence. ( 25 ) AFTER referring to this again in para 6 the division bench again notices in para 7 as under: "7. Thus, it is clear that the theoretical possibility of a land being used for agricultural purposes cannot be a ground to treat it as agricultural land. In fact the respondents proceeded as if the vacant land housing the bungalow in question, is appurtinent to the bungalow itself, which means the land should be treated on par with the status given to the main bungalow. 28. Thus, it is clear that the theoretical possibility of a land being used for agricultural purposes cannot be a ground to treat it as agricultural land. After noticing Section 81a in para 8 it is ruled as under: "8. Section 81a of the Karnataka land Reforms Act will be attracted to the sale of an agricultural land. Since we have come to the conclusion that the property in question is not agricultural land. Section 81a of the land Reforms Act will be in applicable. It is also clear that prima facie the tendering application under section 48a of the land Reforms Act would not affect the property in question. However, if for any reason, there is any overlapping of the land in question with the land claimed in form no. VII filed before the land tribunal, the dispute has to be appropriately solved by the land tribunal. But prima facie we do not find anything on record to indicate that the land covered by form VI! However, if for any reason, there is any overlapping of the land in question with the land claimed in form no. VII filed before the land tribunal, the dispute has to be appropriately solved by the land tribunal. But prima facie we do not find anything on record to indicate that the land covered by form VI! application includes any part of the property popularly referred as 'scots bungalow. '. ( 26 ) IN the said order the division bench has categorically ruled that the property in question is not agricultural land. However, the division bench noticed that if there was any overlapping of land in question with the land claimed in form VII the dispute has to be appropriately solved by the land tribunal. After this order was passed the petitioners had chosen to file a Writ Petition before this Court in wpno. 28916/92. The matter was listed before the same bench. The bench disposed of the same on 5. 11. 98 reading as under: "though the matter is listed for orders, yet the same is heard on merits and is being disposed of at this stage finally. The present petition is filed with prayer for reviewing the order passed in WP 9265/85 decided on 15,6. 92, Allowing the Writ petition would amount to setting aside the order of the division bench which is not permissible under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution. Even if this petition is treated as a revision petition, the same is not maintainable as it was admittedly filed after the period of limitation. We have been informed by the learned Counsel for respondents that the order sought to be reviewed and set aside by way of this petition was already implemented on 18. 7. 92, admittedly before filing of the present Writ petition. The petition has thus, also become infructuous. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed" ( 27 ) THIS order is again challenged which is dismissed by thes latest order. In the light of this order it is dear to me that this Court taking note of the very question has categorically ruled that this is not an agricultural property. The finding of the tribunal with regard to character of lands being agricultural or not is resolved by the judgment of this Court. In the light of this order it is dear to me that this Court taking note of the very question has categorically ruled that this is not an agricultural property. The finding of the tribunal with regard to character of lands being agricultural or not is resolved by the judgment of this Court. When the same is sought 10 be reviewed this Court refused to reconsider the same as I see from the material on record. Though there is some controversy as to whether this would amount to resjudicata or not, but without even going into that complicated question of law in my view the subsequent development of a finding of this Court supports impugned orders. Therefore on this ground also petition has to fail. ( 28 ) SRI Sreenivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends before me that that if there was overlapping of the land in question with the land claimed in form 7 that dispute has to be appropriately solved only by land tribunal. According to the Counsel notwithstanding this judgment land tribunal has the authority according to the Counsel and this judgment cannot come in his way. I am afraid that this argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that this petitioner has challenged the very same order in subsequent Writ Petitions and las which has been negatived by this court. In the circumstances and in the light of order of this Court I am unable to accept the argument of the Counsel that notwithstanding these judgments this Court has come to the aid of the petitioners. Therefore the subsequent events also go against the petitioners. ( 29 ) I must also take note of a suit filed by respondent 4 against the present petitioners. The said matter was contested by the present petitioners. After hearing the Court granted an injunction against the very petitioner. All these facts taken as a whole show that the petitioner has not proved his case beyond doubt with regard to cultivation in the matter of occupancy rights. Therefore notwithstanding the forceful submission of Sri Sreenivasa Raghavan I have no hesitation in holding that the findings do not require any interference. ( 30 ) THE Counsel at the fag end of the argument also referred to me with regard to certain receipts and the notice issued to him. Therefore notwithstanding the forceful submission of Sri Sreenivasa Raghavan I have no hesitation in holding that the findings do not require any interference. ( 30 ) THE Counsel at the fag end of the argument also referred to me with regard to certain receipts and the notice issued to him. These materials read carefully would show that the petitioners were not granted any lis as such and on the otherhand he was only permitted to pluck the fruit, this is not a tenancy as held by me in earlier part of the order. I must also notice that admittedly lands belong to Maharaja of Mysore, petitioners and others were cultivating the portion of the land. Litigation has gone on for several years. After evidence the tribunal and the Appellate Authority have granted substantial portion of the lands in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners were not only given 3 acre 18 guntas in sy. no. 364 in the impugned order. Admittedly the petitioners have been granted occupancy right in Sy. No. 362/1 and 365 and is also granted another 3 acre in sy. No. 364. Only lands measuring 3 acres 18 guntas is rejected in the absence of any positive material coming to the aid of the petitioner. This Court as I mentioned earlier cannot reappreciate the concurrent findings, even otherwise this Court in the judgment reported in H. S. SIDDAPPA vs V. AKSHMAMMA has ruled that: "it is well established that the High Curt is not bound to interfere under Section 115 CPC except in aid of justice. Thus, where the order of the subordinate Court has brought about a just result and where the setting aside the order would bring about an unjust result the High Court would not exercise its discretion under Section 115 CPC and interfere with such order, even though the order suffers from an illegality or irregularity. " similarly in the subsequent judgment in the case of Nage gowda vs basavana Gowda and Another (supra) this Court again ruled that the revisiona! jurisdiction can be exercised only with regard to errors of jurisdiction and grossly unjust order. Present order in my view cannot be said to be such gross unjust order requiring my interference in a revision in respect of concurrent findings of the fact. Therefore, on this ground also petition has to fail. jurisdiction can be exercised only with regard to errors of jurisdiction and grossly unjust order. Present order in my view cannot be said to be such gross unjust order requiring my interference in a revision in respect of concurrent findings of the fact. Therefore, on this ground also petition has to fail. ( 31 ) LASTLY, I must also notice that the sale deed is not challenged so for by the petitioners. There are lands granted to other tenants, and their grants are also not challenged by the petitioners in the same survey number. ( 32 ) IN the result petition stands dismissed but without any order as to costs. --- *** --- .