Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 447 (KAR)

Gurappa v. State of Karnataka

2009-06-29

L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2009
ORDER L. Narayana Swamy, J: The petitioner challenges the common order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore in LRF No. 3589/75-76 and 4060/76. The' petitioner and the third respondent are the rival daimants in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.39/2 of Vittasandra Village, Bagur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The third respondent is represented by his LRs. The Land Tribunal by the order dated 31.3.1997 rejected the case of the petitioner and occupancy right has been conferred on respondent No.3. 2. The third respondent filed application for conferment of occupancy right in Form No.7 on 29.1.1976 in respect of Sy.No.39/2 which was registered as LRP No.3589/75-76. The petitioner also made application on 17.6.1976, which was registered in LRF N 0.4060/76. On an earlier occasion, the Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3 and the same was challenged before this Court in W P No. 10715/76 which came to be disposed of on 25/7/1983. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal considering both the cases jointly. Thereafter the present order has been passed by the Land Tribunal, which is impugned herein. 3. The petitioner submits that he was the tenant in respect of the land in question, he was paying 'vara' to Sri Venkatagiriyappa during his life-time and thereafter to his son Sri V. Krishnarnurthy. He has been issued receipts for having accepted the 'vara'. The RTC was also standing in the name off other of the petitioner and the same has been produced at Annexure-A. The name off other of the petitioner has been shown in column No.12(2) since 1968-69 till 1980-81. Copy of the Form No.7 has been produced at Annexure-B and the order passed by the Land Tribunal in favour of the third respondent has been produced at Annexure-D. 4. After the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, the Land Tribunal has conferred occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner submits that the High Court directed the Land Tribunal to pass fresh order after affording full opportunity but the impugned order has been passed straight in contravention of the directions of this Court. The Tribunal while disposing of the matter has relied upon the evidence recorded prior to July, 1983. The petitioner submits that the High Court directed the Land Tribunal to pass fresh order after affording full opportunity but the impugned order has been passed straight in contravention of the directions of this Court. The Tribunal while disposing of the matter has relied upon the evidence recorded prior to July, 1983. One Sri Lakshminarasimhaiah who claimed himself as the owner of the land in question had made a statement on 10.6.1976 that is, prior to the order passed in the writ petition and his statement has been considered by the Land Tribunal. It is submitted that petitioner was denied opportunity to cross-examine the witness Lakshminarasimhaiah since as on that day, the petitioner was not a party in the proceedings. He further submitted that at least either, Lakshminarasimhaiah or his L.Rs. could have been called for examination. The Tribunal further considered the spot inspection said to have been conducted by the Revenue Inspector which was also not made available to the petitioner. The evidence of Muniyappa Bin late Bangi Muniyappa, Muniswamy Bin late Poojary Patalappa who have made statement on 1/3/ 1974 have been considered by the Land Tribunal. The petitioner submits that his father was the tenant and he was paying 'vara' to the landowner V. Krishnamurthy and his mother Smt. Subbamma and obtained receipt for having accepted the 'vara'. Sri Lakshminarasimhaiah was not the landowner and the true owner was V. Krishna Murthy and hence there is a confusion between Lakshminarasimhaiah and Krishnamurthy in respect of ownership of the land in question. Hence it is the contention of the petitioner that there is denial of opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice and mandatory provisions of Section 48-A and Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Rules. 5. The third respondent has filed statement of objections. He has denied the claim made by the petitioner. He has submitted that the owner of the land in question was one Lakshminarasimhaiah to whom the third respondent used to pay the rents and it is further stated that at no point of time Krishnamurthy was the owner of the land in question. He has Submitted that in view of the statement made by Lakashminarasimhaiah and spot inspection conducted by Revenue Inspector and oral evidence of the other witnesses strengthen his claim in respect of tenancy over Sy.No.39/2. He has Submitted that in view of the statement made by Lakashminarasimhaiah and spot inspection conducted by Revenue Inspector and oral evidence of the other witnesses strengthen his claim in respect of tenancy over Sy.No.39/2. Accordingly there is no infirmities in the order of the Land Tribunal. Hence he submitted to dismiss this petition. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that he has been denied the opportunity of cross-examining Sri Lakshminarasimhaiah or his LRs. It is his further submission that report of the Revenue Inspector said to have been made during 1976 was not made available to him for cross-examination. It is well-established law that whenever the Tribunal or the Court refers to any statement of the witness, it should be done only in presence of the parties to the proceedings. Otherwise it would prejudice the interest of the persons. The statement of Sri Lakshminarasimhaiah made in 1976 has been relied upon by the Land Tribunal. When the petitioner has made application to examine either Lakshminarasimhaiah or his LRs. the same has been denied. The report of the Revenue Inspector was also not made available to the petitioner. To that extent, the impugned order suffers on account of violation of principles of natural justice. From the original file placed before me, I have gone through the RTC for the year 1968-69 upto 1972-73. The name of Peddanna has been entered in Column No. 12(2) and in Column No. 12(3) 'vara' has been mentioned. In column No.9 Lakshminarasimhaiah's name has been shown. For the year 1972-73 in Column No. 12(3) 'Swantha' has been written. But in Column No. 12(2) name of neither name of the petitioner nor the land-owner has been entered. Since petitioner's father's name has been entered for the year 1968-69 unless and until the said name is delated either by statutory proceedings or by Court proceedings the name in Column 12(2) continues till then. The respondent No.3 has not placed any document as to how the name of the petitioner has been deleted, if any. The said RTCs has been seen at page N 0.40 of the original file. From the original file I have also seen the receipts at page 103 and 104. The first receipt has been issued by V. Krishnamurthy. In page 39 RTC for the year 1973-74 has been produced and as stated earlier in column No. 12(2) no names have been entered. From the original file I have also seen the receipts at page 103 and 104. The first receipt has been issued by V. Krishnamurthy. In page 39 RTC for the year 1973-74 has been produced and as stated earlier in column No. 12(2) no names have been entered. This was considered by the Land Tribunal. Another receipt found at page No.104 has been issued by both V. Krishnamurthy and his mother Subbamma. The said receipt is for the year 1971 in respect of Sy. No.39/2. These documents are very old documents in existence since from an undisputed point of time. These two things have not been discussed by the Land Tribunal in the impugned order. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, it is found that the Land Tribunal while passing the impugned order has taken into account the statement made by Lakshminarasimhaiah and also report of the Revenue Inspector which has been recorded and conducted much prior to the orders passed by the Land Tribunal after 1981. This Court directed the Land Tribunal to pass a fresh order means that the Tribunal should begin its proceedings afresh. If any evidence or report has been recorded much prior to the proceedings that could be made available to both the parties for examination. In the instant case, that has not been done. The RTC entry which shows the name of Peddanna and Gurappa and receipts said to have been issued by Krishnamurthy and Subbamma who are said to be the landowners are also not properly considered. The Tribunal has stated that Gurappa has produced only two documents to prove his case. Number of documents produced by the parties will hot decide the fact. What is important to be looked into is relevancy of the document, which has to be considered. In view of the above, I pass the following order: 8. Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal, Doddaballapur for fresh consideration and the Tribunal is directed to pass fresh order as expeditiously as possible. The Tribunal is further directed to issue fresh notice before commencing the proceedings.