Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 885 (KAR)

Prabhakar Rao P. v. Land Tribunal

2001-12-05

CHIDANANDA ULLAL

body2001
ORDER Chidananda Ullal, J.—The Petitioner claiming to be the owner of the subject land in filing the instant writ petition had challenged the order dated 19.2.1999 in No. TRL 2734/76-77 passed by the Respondent No. 1-Land Tribunal, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition. 2. The Petitioner is represented by the learned Counsel, Sri Sampath Anand Shetty. The Respondent No. 2 is represented by the learned Counsel, Sri Abdulla appearing for M/s. Hegde Associates, whereas the Respondent No. 1-Land Tribunal and the Respondent No. 3-State are represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri V. Bychappa. 3. I heard this matter on 3.12.2001 and 4.12.2001 and the matter had been listed for dictation of order this day. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Shetty, had taken me through the facts of the case. While urging the grounds made in the writ petition, it was argued by him that the Land Tribunal had granted part of the land in respect of 1 acre 54 cents out of 3 acres 4 cents to the Respondent No. 2 by making a new case before the Land Tribunal. It was also his submission that the Respondent No. 2 at the first instance had filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy right in respect of 'punja' land showing the name of Ramakrishna Joshi @ Kalkoora, son of Puttanna Kalkura as the owner evidenced by Form No. 7, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition. According to him, the subject land did not belong to the above said person, whereas it belonged to his party and it is for that good reason, his party had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the said order and in the said writ petition, this Court had set aside the earlier order of grant made by the Respondent No. 1 and further remitted the claim in question to the Land Tribunal for denovo enquiry and further to pass appropriate order thereon and that thereafter both the Petitioner on the one side and the contesting Respondent No. 2 on the other had adduced respective side of the evidence, both oral and documentary and upon that, the Land Tribunal had passed the impugned order granting part of the land i.e. 1 acre 54 cents to the Respondent No. 2. 5. 5. It was also argued by him that the Land Tribunal held the subject land as an agricultural land for the reason that part of the land was admittedly cultivated by his party and as such, the entire extent of land had to be considered as one unit for the purpose of deciding the claim of the Respondent No. 2. He had specifically drawn my attention to the circumstances that the Respondent No. 2 had given go-by for his own case, for, when the claim made by him was in respect of the entire extent of 3 acre 4 cents describing the same in Form No. 7 as 'punja' land, in his evidence he had desposed before the Land Tribunal in an unambiguous term that the part of the land to an extent of 30 cents was 'nanja' land and further that there around contained a house, 'hatti-kottige', well and trees like jack fruit trees, coconut trees and banana plants and they were all in the possession of the Petitioner and as such, according to Sri Shetty, there was no good reason for the Land Tribunal to grant an extent of 1 acre 54 cents describing the same as 'nanja' land out of the total extent of 3 acres 4 cents bifurcating from the cultivated land by his party. 6. It was also submitted by Sri Shetty that when the Land Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the Respondent No. 2 had not proved to the satisfaction of the Land Tribunal that the entire extent of land claimed by him was tenanted as on 1.3.1974, the Land Tribunal would have as well rejected the claim of the Respondent No. 2 in its entirety on that ground alone. Yet another argument of Sri Shetty was that the so called 'alave geni chit' produced by the Respondent No. 2 before the Land Tribunal was a photostat copy and further more that was in no way connected to the Petitioner as the said 'geni chit' was not executed by his party. He had also added that the said 'geni chit' was not admissible in law and as such, the Land Tribunal would not have relied upon that 'geni chit' as the same was in xerox. He had also added that the said 'geni chit' was not admissible in law and as such, the Land Tribunal would not have relied upon that 'geni chit' as the same was in xerox. In this regard, he had also pointed out that in the said xerox copy of the 'geni chit', the term was shown for 10 years from 1951 to 1961. 7. Therefore, Sri Shetty submitted that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal granting the part of the land that too describing the same as 'punja' land is liable to be quashed. 8. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, Sri Abdulla, on the otherside supported the impugned order. He had also argued that though the claim of this party was in respect of the entire extent of land, the Land Tribunal had granted the occupancy right in respect of the part of land measuring 1 acre 54 cents out of the total extent of land of 3 acres 4 cents, when his party had proved that he was in possession of that part of the land. While referring to the pahani extracts produced by his party before the Land Tribunal, one found at page Nos. 167 to 171 in the Land Tribunal records, Sri Abdulla had also argued that the pahani entries for the year from 1967 to 1968 down the year 1973-74 clearly showed the name of his party. According to him, from the said extract, it was clear before the land Tribunal that as on 1.3.1974 his party was in possession of the subject land. According to him, this in fact was very well appreciated by the Land Tribunal while passing the impugned order granting part of the land to his party. While referring to pahani extracts at page Nos. 167 to 168 in the Land Tribunal records, it was further argued by Sri Abdulla that in column No. 9 the name of the original owner one Puttanna Kalkura had very well been shown therein and further more at column No. 11 therein the name of his party had also occurred. In support of his argument, Sri Abdulla had also cited before me a decision of the Supreme Court reported in ILR 2001 Kar 3959. In support of his argument, Sri Abdulla had also cited before me a decision of the Supreme Court reported in ILR 2001 Kar 3959. As I see, in the said decision, the Supreme Court had restored the order of Land Tribunal granting occupancy right in the name of the tenant on appreciation of pahani entries in the name of the tenant for the relevant year. 9. Therefore, according to Sri Abdulla, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal was just and proper and as such, not called for to be interfered with by this Court in entertaining the instant writ petition. 10. In the light of the above arguments advanced, the points that arise for my consideration are: (i) whether the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy right to the Respondent No. 2 in respect of the part of the land describing the same as 'nanja' land in the name of the Respondent No. 2 is just and proper and (ii) whether the same is based on evidence on record or not. 11. In filing Form No. 7, as I see, the Petitioner had originally claimed the entire extent of 3 acres 4 cents of land in survey number in question describing the same as 'punja' land and further showing the same as one belonged to Ramakrishna Joshi and the Land Tribunal in the first round of proceedings had granted the entire extent of land in the name of the Respondent No. 2. It is not in dispute before me that the order that came to be passed by the Land Tribunal in favour of the Respondent No. 2 by granting the subject land as against the above said Ramakrishna Joshi and this Court by accepting the case of the Petitioner in the original writ petition that the land in question belonged to him and that the order of grant made was behind his back, remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for de novo enquiry. That being the position, I do not think that the ownership of the subject land by the Petitioner could not be point at controversy either before the Land Tribunal or before this Court now. 12. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, Sri Abdulla, had placed reliance heavily on the pahani entries referred to above. That being the position, I do not think that the ownership of the subject land by the Petitioner could not be point at controversy either before the Land Tribunal or before this Court now. 12. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, Sri Abdulla, had placed reliance heavily on the pahani entries referred to above. It is pertinent to mention here that the name of the Respondent No. 2 had been described by him as 'Krishnayya Hebbar' but on close scrutiny of the R.O.R., it is seen that the name of the Respondent No. 2 did not appear in the said R.O.R., for, the name that had been described therein is one 'Krishna Rao' and as such it is futile for the Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, Sri Abdulla to argue before this Court that the R.O.R. stands in the name of his party. Further, in the said pahani it had been shown that the subject land was 'khushki' and paddy was grown, but that was not at all the case of the Respondent No. 2, for according to him as made out in Form No. 7, the land was a 'nanja' land and was used only for collecting 'soppu' for beneficial use of his agricultural land or 'hiduvali' land situated at a distance of 1 k.m. away. 13. Yet another aspect of the case is that in the entries for the year 1988-89 to the year 1993-94 the owner's name had been shown as 'Padmavathiyamma' and the name of the tenant had been shown as 'Krishna Rao'. Let apart on going through the evidence on record of the Land Tribunal, I have to observe here that it was a case of the Petitioner that other than 1 acre 54 cents of land out of 3 acres 4 cents of land in survey in question, was in his occupation and the remaining extent of land was in the occupation of the Petitioner himself. It is also borne on the Land Tribunal records that the Land Tribunal while holding the spot inspection did observe that the part of the subject land in fact was in occupation of the Petitioner himself. It is also borne on the Land Tribunal records that the Land Tribunal while holding the spot inspection did observe that the part of the subject land in fact was in occupation of the Petitioner himself. If that be the evidence (both oral and documentary) on record, it appears to me that the pahani entries for the years from 1967-68 to 1979-80, 1988-89 to 1989-90 and further for the years 1993-94 did not support the case of the Respondent No. 2 at all. It is to be added here that the evidential value of the said pahani entries stood totally rebutted, firstly by the evidence of the Respondent No. 2 himself before the Land Tribunal and further by the inspection report of the Land Tribunal. 14. In the said circumstances, I do not think that the pahani entries what the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 relied upon to support the case of his party are of any relevance. It is not out of context to observe here that the same had derailed the case of the Respondent No. 2 totally, for, his case in filing the Form No. 7 was one and his evidence before the Land Tribunal was another, yet time supporting the counter case of the Petitioner herein before the Land Tribunal. 15. It is also to be noted here that the Land Tribunal in passing the impugned order had clearly concluded that the Respondent No. 2 had not proved that the subject land claimed was in his possession as on 1.3.1974. If that was the conclusion the Land Tribunal had reached in the matter of the claim of the Respondent No. 2 based on evidence of the parties before the Land Tribunal, the question of grant of land even in respect of part of land did not arise at all. That in fact was one of the points argued before the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Shetty. As I see, the conclusion what the Land Tribunal had reached to reject part of the claim of the Respondent No. 2 in passing the impugned order had not even been challenged by him. 15. That in fact was one of the points argued before the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Shetty. As I see, the conclusion what the Land Tribunal had reached to reject part of the claim of the Respondent No. 2 in passing the impugned order had not even been challenged by him. 15. Yet another circumstances I should not miss to make a mention here is that the Land Tribunal had held the subject land totally measuring 3 acres 4 cents in S. No. 130/1 as an agricultural land, for the prime reason that the part of that land was cultivated and there were a house, 'hatti-kottige' well and jack fruit trees, coconut trees etc., there around and therefore the entire land had to be taken as one unit and an agricultural land, within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal during the course of the impugned order had also observed that both the Petitioner on the one side and the Respondent No. 2 on the other had contended that they independently cultivated the part of the land while drawing 'Soppu' from the other part of land what is known in that part of the State as 'Hadi' land. I feel it appropriate to quote that part of the observation of the Land Tribunal here and the same reads as hereunder: KANNADA MATTER It is conspicuous to note in this contest that the Petitioner had deposed before the Land Tribunal that he was cultivating the part of land himself by drawing 'Soppu' from the other part of land and that case of the Petitioner had been accepted by the Land Tribunal and further more, the Respondent No. 2 before the Land Tribunal had clearly admitted himself that position for, he had deposed before the Land Tribunal that it was the Petitioner who was cultivating part of the land by growing paddy and that he was also having there around a house and cattleshed and other trees such as jack fruit trees, coconut trees and banana plants etc. The Land Tribunal on appreciation of that factual and admitted situation had also held that the subject land was an agricultural land within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Land Reforms Act; in a way the Land Tribunal had taken the entire extent as one unit for the purpose of deciding the claim of the Respondent No. 2. If the subject land was one unit for the purpose of grant by the Land Tribunal, I am of the considered view that the Land Tribunal would not have bifurcated uncultivated portion of the land (punja land) from the cultivated part of land to grant 1 acre 54 cents to the Respondent No. 2 in consideration of Form No. 7 filed by him. It is also conspicuous to observe here at the cost of repetition that, in filing the Form No. 7, the Respondent No. 2 had claimed the entire extent of 3 acres 4 cents of 'punja' land and was used by him for the purpose of better cultivation of his land owned by him situated at about 1 km. away from the subject land. 16. In that scenario, according to me, the Land Tribunal would have naturally released the land to the Petitioner as he was the owner of the entire land while rejecting the claim of the Respondent No. 2 in toto. 17. Sri Abdulla had cited before me the decision of the Supreme Court as aforementioned. But I do not think that the same has got any relevance to the instant case in hand, since pahani entries produced by his party before the Land Tribunal was of no consequence at all. 18. Therefore, in the above set of facts and circumstances, in my considered view, the Land Tribunal would not have granted even part of the land i.e., 1 acre 54 cents out of total extent of 3 acres 4 cents of land in survey number in question describing the same as 'nanja' land to the Respondent No. 2. 19. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 19.2.1999 in No. TRL 2734/76-77 passed by the Respondent No. 1-Land Tribunal, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition, granting part of land cannot sustain in law and as such has to be quashed and accordingly stands quashed. 19. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 19.2.1999 in No. TRL 2734/76-77 passed by the Respondent No. 1-Land Tribunal, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition, granting part of land cannot sustain in law and as such has to be quashed and accordingly stands quashed. In doing that, Form No. 7 filed by the Respondent No. 2 before the Respondent No. 1-Land Tribunal stands disposed off as the same does not survive for consideration any more and any longer in view of the above conclusion reached by me. While doing that, I am aware that it is within the domain of the Land Tribunal either to accept or reject the Form No. 7 filed by a party as that of the Respondent No. 2 herein, even in part but this Court cannot afford of appreciating technicalities to prolong unnecessary, purposeless and inconsequential litigations in one more round before the Land Tribunal to formally reject the Form No. 7 filed. 20. The writ petition therefore succeeds and accordingly stands allowed in the above terms. No cost. 21. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the Respondent No. 1-Land Tribunal for its record at an early date.