Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 485 (KAR)

MALLAPPA AND SHANKAR v. BASAPPA

2003-06-20

body2003
( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions are filed against the order dated 6. 2. 1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The first petition is filed by the rival claimant and the second petition by the purchaser of the lands. The lands involved in these cases are Sy Nos. 29/15 and 29/17, which are hereinafter referred to as A Schedule lands and Sy Nos. 33/4, 33/12 and 33/24, which are referred to as B schedule lands. The lands are situated at Rollwadi Village in Basavakalyan Taluk of Bidar District. ( 2 ) PETITIONER Mallappa in the first petition and the first respondent Basappa were the rival claimants before the land tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the A Schedule lands in question Basappa claimed occupancy rights for B schedule lands also. At an earlier point of time the land tribunal passed an order but the same was set aside by this Court and the matte was remanded. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 1. 10. 1981 granted occupancy rights in favour of the Mallappa and rejected the application of Basappa. Against the order, Basappa filed Appeal. The Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 6. 2. 1989 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the lands tribunal and granted occupancy rights in respect of A schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same Mallappa filed LRRP No. 2461/89 LRRP No 2462/89 is filed by the purchaser of the lands. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority. ( 4 ) THIS Court proceeds to consider the merits of LRRP No 2461/89 in the first instance and later consider the connected petition. The Land Tribunal referred to the statement of Mallappa to the effect that he was cultivating B schedule lands to an extent of 3-02 acres. However, he has not produced any documents in support of his claim. But, occupancy rights had been granted by the Tribunal on the basis of the entries in favour of Mallappa only for the year 1973-74. The Tribunal rejected the claim of Basappa only on the ground that he is the husband of sister of Ramachandra, the owner of the lands. But, occupancy rights had been granted by the Tribunal on the basis of the entries in favour of Mallappa only for the year 1973-74. The Tribunal rejected the claim of Basappa only on the ground that he is the husband of sister of Ramachandra, the owner of the lands. ( 5 ) THE Appellate Authority found that Basapppa was in possession of the lands as tenant until he was dispossessed in the year 1974. The pahani entries were in favour of Basappa from 1968-69 onwards. It was found that all of a sudden his name was rounded of and the name of Maruthi and Shanker had been entered When Basappa was in lawful possession as tenant immediately prior to the appointed day (1. 3. 1974), his dispossession was unlawful PWs 2 to 4 corroborated the dispossession. The Appellate Authority rightly not gave any presumptive value to the pahani entry for the year 1973-74 in favour of Mallappa. Hence, in paragraph 25 of the judgment the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights dismissed the application of Mallappa and allowed the application of Basappa in respect of B Schedule lands. ( 6 ) IN respect of A Schedule properties also, the Appellate Authority found that Basappa was in possession of these lands also and he was disposed in the year 1974. It has considered the evidence of Mallappa denying the possession of Basappa. However, he had not stated that he was the tenant of the lands. On the basis of the entries in the record of rights, the Appellate Authority held that Basappa was cultivating A schedule lands also as tenant and he was unlawfully dispossessed in the year 1974. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are based on material placed on record with valid and cogent reasons. The judgment of the Appellate Authority is well-considered and need not warrant any interference. Hence, LRRP No. 2461/89 must fail. ( 7 ) IN so far as LRRP No. 2462/89 is concerned, the petitioner Shankar has challenged the judgment of the Appellate Authority under revision on the ground that he is the purchaser of the A schedule lands but he had not at all been notified and there is violation of principles of natural justice. Documents are produced along with I A II to show that he is in possession of the lands purchased by him. Documents are produced along with I A II to show that he is in possession of the lands purchased by him. ( 8 ) THE petitioner Shankar was not a party either before the Land Tribunal or the Appellate Authority. Hence, he has no locus standi to maintain this revision petition. He has not even sought permission to prosecute this revision petition. On this ground alone the connected revision petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) ANOTHER ground on which the revision petition has to be dismissed is, the petitioner has not got impleaded himself in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal or the Appellate Authority. All along he kept quite and approached this Court after the judgment under revision is passed by the Appellate Authority. The laches on his part disentitle him to seek any relief. ( 10 ) IT is no doubt true that petitioner has produced documents to show that he is in possession of the lands. But, it must be noted that the tenant had been illegally and unlawfully dispossessed from the lands in the year 1974, probably by the petitioner Shankar after he purchased the lands in the year 1972. The tenancy rights accrued in favour of the petitioner in LRRP No. 2461/89 cannot be deprived by means of such illegal action. In view of the categorical findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in relation to the tenancy rights and the dispossession of the tenant, this Court declines to interfere with the judgment under revision. The revision petitions are dismissed. --- *** --- .