Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 788 (KAR)

Badia Nayaka v. Jimme Seshagiriyappa

2005-11-30

N.K.PATIL

body2005
ORDER 1. These two revision petitions arise out of common order daetd 26th July, 1989 in case No. LRA : 109/1987 on the file of the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur District, modifying the order dated 13th March, 1987 passed by Land Tribunal, Sringeri in Proceedings No. LRM; 1198/1971 in respect of Sy. No. 60/P measuring 04 acres situate at Gandaghatta village, Sringeri Taluk, Chickmagalur Dist. 2. Petitioners herein and respondents 6 to 8 claiming to be tenants in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 60/P, measuring 04 acres, situate at Gandaghatta village, Sringeri Taluk, Chickmagalur District have filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights and respondents 1 to 3 in second revision-petition L.R.R.P. No. 1059/1990, claiming to be land owners (inamdars) of the land in question, had filed application for registration of occupancy rights. The said applications filed by all the above parties had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, Sringeri on 22nd August, 1981 and 7th October, 1981. The Land Tribunal, Sringeri, passed the orders on the aforesaid dates granting occupancy rights. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Sringeri, petitioner in second revision-petition, i.e. Sri Chimme Sheshagiriyappa filed a writ petition before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7142/1982. The said writ petition filed by petitioner was allowed by this Court by its order dated 6th April, 1983 and both the orders passed by Land Tribunal, Sringeri were set aside and the matter was remitted back to Land Tribunal, Sringeri for fresh disposal of the applications filed by petitioner-Chimme Sheshagiriyappa and respondents 3 to 7 therein, i.e. Sri Krishna Murthy (petitioner No. 2 in first revision-petition and 5th respondent in second revision-petition). Sri Badiyanayaka, (now represented by his legal representatives) (first petitioner in first revision-petition and 4th respondent in second revision-petition), Sri K. Sadashiva Shastry (1st respondent in second revision-petition), Sri K. Shankar Bhatt (2nd respondent in second revision-petition) and Sri K. C. Virupaksha Shastry (3rd respondent in second revision-petition) after holding an enquiry in strict compliance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, and after notice to the petitioner therein. After remand, the Land Tribunal, Sringeri took up the matter for reconsideration on 13th March, 1987 in LRM No. 1198/1971. After remand, the Land Tribunal, Sringeri took up the matter for reconsideration on 13th March, 1987 in LRM No. 1198/1971. The Land Tribunal, after considering oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file, has granted occupancy rights jointly in favour of Sri Sadashiva Shastry, Sri Shankarshastry and Sri Virupakshaa Shastry in respect of 03 acres 25 guntas and granted occupancy rights in favour of late Sri Badiya Nayaka-petitioner in second revision-petition in respect of 03 acres only on the basis of pahani extracts. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by Land Tribunal, Sringeri dated 13th March, 1987, petitioner in second revision-petition and sixth respondent in second revision-petition-Sri Kumbara Mariya filed the appeal on the file of the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur (hereinafter called the Appellate Authority) in proceedings Nos. L.R.A. 85/1987 and L.R..A. No. 109/1987. The Appellate Authority, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Appellate Authority Rules, has passed the common order dated 26th July, 1989, allowing the appeal filed by petitioner in second revision-petition partly and registered occupancy rights in his favour to an extent of 02 acres in Sy. No. 60/P and another 02 acres in favour of fourth respondent therein —Sri Badiya Nayaka, first petitioner in first revision-petition and the occupancy rights granted by the Land Tribunal, Sringeri in respect of 01 acre in favour of Malasampige Krishna Murthy s/o Ramaiah was set aside. So far as the appeal in No. L.R.A. 85/1987 filed by Kumbara Mariya —6th respondent in second revision-petition herein is concerned, the said appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Sringeri as well as the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur, as stated supra, petitioners herein have presented the instant revision-petitions. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Sringeri as well as the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur, as stated supra, petitioners herein have presented the instant revision-petitions. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents. After careful evaluation of the entire original records available on file, threadbare, and after careful perusal of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Sringeri as well as the Appellate Authority, it is manifest on the face of the orders passed by both the authorities that, both the authorities have committed an error of law much less material irregularity, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as the same is passed without conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules read with S. 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Further, it can be seen that, neither the Land Tribunal nor the Appellate Authority has given a finding as to, whether the land in question is a tenanted land as on 1st March, 1974 or was the same vested in Government as on the said date. Further, both the authorities have proceeded solely on the basis of the alleged entries found in the RTC extracts without considering the oral evidence of the parties. They have observed that, from the agricultural year 1968-69, in the RTC column, the name of first petitioner in first revision-petition i.e. Sri Badiya Nayaka has been shown as having cultivating the land in respect of 02 acres of land and the name of petitioner in second revision-petition-Sri Chemme Sheshagiriyappa has been shown as having cultivating the land in question in respect of 02 acres of the said land and fully based on the said entries, ordered for registration of occupancy rights, as stated above. This shows beyond all reasonable doubts that, both the authorities have not conducted proper enquiry before coming to the impugned conclusion. It is, duty cast on the concerned competent authority to, first, give a finding as to whether the land in question is a tenanted land or is the same vested in Government as on 1st March, 1974 and thereafter, the authority can decide as to who is the tenant and to what extent they are entitled for grant of occupancy rights, etc. This aspect of the matter has not at all been gone into by both the authorities and the same are not coming forth from the orders passed by both the authorities. After evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on file, it is seen that, both the authorities have utterly failed to give a specific finding with regard to the said aspect of the matter before deciding on the question of grant of occupancy rights. Therefore, without going into the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and the entries found in the RTC extracts as well as the relevant provisions pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the parties, in my view, it would be just and proper to remand the matter to Land Tribunal, Sringeri for reconsideration afresh, especially when this Court has come to the conclusion that, both the authorities have failed to conduct enquiry and failed to give a specific finding as to whether the land in question is a tenanted land or the same vests in Government as on the stipulated date. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, I am of the considered view that, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities cannot be sustained. Hence, they are liable to be set aside, without expressing any further opinion on merits of the case. 5. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant revision-petitions filed by revision-petitioners are partly allowed and the order passed by Land Tribunal, Sringeri dated 13th March, 1987 in LRM 1198/1971 as well as the order passed by District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur dated 26th July, 1989 in LRA No. 109/1987 are hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the 10th respondent in second revision-petition-Land Tribunal, Sringeri, for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law and to take appropriate decision, after affording an opportunity to petitioners and 5th respondent-Sri Krishna Murty son of Ramaiah and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Further, the Land Tribunal, Sringeri, is directed to conduct enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules read with S. 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and also other relevant mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the fact that, the matter is pending adjudication between the parties since several decades. 6. With these observations, the instant revision petitions filed by petitioners stand disposed of. 7. Office is directed to return the entire original records to 10th respondent-Land Tribunal, Sringeri immediately. 8. Order accordingly.