Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 903 (KAR)

FAKRU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2006-11-10

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2006
ORDER The petition, albeit listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, is finally heard and is disposed of by this order. 2. Facts briefly stated are: The father of the first petitioner and the father of the second and third petitioners filed two separate applications in Form 7, under Section 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act'), for being registered as occupants of one-half share out of land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy. No. 266/4A+4B of Karajage Village. The Land Tribunal after an enquiry over the said two applications, by order dated 26-2-1976 conferred occupancy rights as claimed, which when called in question by the landowner in W.P. No. 531 of 1982, was quashed and the proceeding remitted for fresh consideration. 3. On remand, the third respondent though served with notice of the proceeding before the Land Tribunal, remained absent and unrepresented. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the first and second petitioners, jointly instituted O.S. No. 15 of 2001 arraigning the landowner, the third respondent herein as a party defendant, which when referred to the Lok Adalat, the parties reported a settlement by filing a compromise petition recording the terms, the basis of the award dated 15-6-2001, Annexure-D. 4. The petitioners having produced the award Annexure-D in the enquiry proceeding the Land Tribunal by order dated 26-8-2004, Annexure-E conferred occupancy rights over one-half of the land jointly in favour of the petitioners and rejected the claim over the balance half. Hence this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the terms of the award Annexure-D which run thus: 5. A plain reading of the terms disclose that the subject-matter of the compromise between the parties relates to the claim of the petitioners as lawful tenants of the lands in question, more specifically the claim over one-half extent of land in Sy. No. 266/4A+4B as particularised in the application filed by the father of the first petitioner, set out in paragraph 2 of the terms, and the claim of the father of the second and third petitioners, over the balance one-half extent, as mentioned in paragraph of the terms. No. 266/4A+4B as particularised in the application filed by the father of the first petitioner, set out in paragraph 2 of the terms, and the claim of the father of the second and third petitioners, over the balance one-half extent, as mentioned in paragraph of the terms. In paragraph 3 the landowner admits that the petitioners are in possession of the lands, that he would cause no interference with the possession or stake a claim to the same, and that his name shown in the RTC phani of the relevant year, as the cultivator of the land is an incorrect entry (pokka). In paragraph 5, it is stated that the petitioners may make a report to the revenue authorities to have their names substituted in the records. In paragraph 5, the landowner reiterates that he has no rights over the lands muchless possession. 6. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Land Tribunal fell in error in refusing to consider the award Annexure-D, on the premise that it is not binding in view of Section 44 of the Act. In opposition, the learned Counsel for the Caveator-third respondent, owner, contends that the Section 44 of the Act precludes the Tribunal from taking into consideration any judgment, decree or order of the competent Civil Court in a proceeding for conferring occupancy rights under the Act. 7. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act provides for transfer and vesting in the State, all lands held by or in possession of tenants including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued, while sub-section (2) provides for the consequences of vesting, notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any Court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in any contract or grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force. 8. The award Annexure-D does not partake the character of a decree or order of eviction or a certificate for resumption falling within Section 44 of the Act, so as not to be binding on the Land Tribunal in an enquiry to confer occupancy rights over tenanted lands. 8. The award Annexure-D does not partake the character of a decree or order of eviction or a certificate for resumption falling within Section 44 of the Act, so as not to be binding on the Land Tribunal in an enquiry to confer occupancy rights over tenanted lands. Having regard to the patent mistakes committed by the Tribunal in the matter of interpretation of the relevant statutory provision and total misdirection of vital and relevant facts, necessitates interference with the order impugned. 9. It is next contended that the Tribunal fell in error in rejecting the claim of the petitioners over the balance extent of land on account of the presumption arising over the entry in the RTC phani for the relevant year showing the name of the landowner as the cultivator of one-half extent of land. According to the learned Counsel, the award Annexure-D established contra facts rebutting the presumption arising under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'Revenue Act'). Per contra, the learned Counsel for the third respondent contends that the terms of the compromise ought to be interpreted to mean that the landowner admitted the claim of the petitioners to one-half extent of the land in question and not to be entire extent. 10. It is no doubt true that Section 13.3 of the Revenue Act permits raising a presumption over the correctness of the entries in the revenue records which is rebuttal by adducing evidence to establish contra facts. The terms of the award Annexure-D, more particularly the admission of the landowner that the RTC phani showing his name as the cultivator of one-half extent of the land in question is an incorrect entry (pokkal), coupled with the declaration that he has no claim over the said property and the petitioners are at liberty to file a report to the revenue authorities to substitute their names in the revenue records, leaves no room for doubt that they constitute substantial legal evidence establishing contra facts to rebut the presumption. Having regard to the terms of the compromise the contention of the learned Counsel for the third respondent is but a specious plea to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioners. 11. The exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is said to be in the nature of a sparing surgery but the lancet operates where injustice suppurates. 11. The exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is said to be in the nature of a sparing surgery but the lancet operates where injustice suppurates. The wide words of Article 226 are designed to service of the lowly numbers in their grievances if the subject belongs to the Court's province and the remedy is appropriate to the judicial process. Writ of certiorari is issued when the Tribunal is found to have acted in flagrant disregard of law. 12. In the instance case, the Land Tribunal, quite contrary to expected reasonable and judicious adjudication by an objective process of reasoning, recorded findings shown to suffer from legal infirmities and the order impugned vitiated on account of perversity of approach, calling for a different conclusion and interfere with the verdict. 13. The parties having no dispute with regard to lawful tenancy and landlord tenant relationship, in respect of the land in question, on the appointed date, the two applicants were in law entitled to be conferred with the occupancy rights over one-half extent of land, each. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order dated 26-82006, Annexure-E of the Land Tribunal is quashed and the proceeding remitted directing the Tribunal to confer occupancy rights over one-half extent, each, to the two applicants out of 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy. No. 266/4A+4B of Karajage Village and pass orders thereon, in any event, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.