Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1182 (KAR)

Celine Crasta v. State of Karnataka

2015-10-13

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2015
ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. Since common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this order. Petitioners in each of the petitions, have called in question the common order dated 9th April, 2012 dismissing Appeal Nos. 898, 1008 and 1009 of 2011 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'KAT') affirming the common order dated 19-1-2011 of the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division, Mangalore, in Nos. LRT/7151, 7199, 7186/2000-01 rejecting petitioners' applications in Form 7-A, under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'KLR Act') for grant of land. 2. Facts briefly stated are: "Petitioner in W.P. No. 1509 of 2013 filed application in Form 7-A for grant of land measuring 2 acres 82 cents in Sy. No. 113/1A3 of Neermarga Village invoking Section 77-A of the KLR Act; petitioner in W.P. No. 41531 of 2012 filed application in Form 7-A for grant of lands measuring 70 cents in Sy. No. 114/1A1 of Neermarga Village; Sy. No. 113/1A3 measuring 2 acres 82 cents; Sy. No. 113/1C measuring 56 cents; Sy. No. 114/11A measuring 70 cents; and Sy. No. 169/4P1 measuring 38 cents; while, petitioner in W.P. No. 40346 of 2012 filed application in Form 7-A for grant of lands measuring 70 cents in Sy. No. 114/1A1; Sy. No. 113/1A3 measuring 2 acres 82 cents; Sy. No. 113/1C measuring 56 cents; Sy. No. 114/1A1 measuring 70 cents and Sy. No. 169/4P1 measuring 38 cents. Petitioners asserted that: (i) their father-in-law by name D'Crasta was the cultivator of the aforesaid lands and his name was recorded in the RTC Pahani for the period from 1968-69 onwards while the properties were owned by Alexander Ignatius D'Silva; (ii) petitioners' father-in-law did not file application in Form 7 to be registered as an occupant, under Section 48-A of the KLR Act, within the time stipulated and; the lands stood vested in the State under Section 44 of the KLR Act as on 1-3-1974, hence entitled to maintain the applications for grant of land under Section 77-A of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner on enquiry recorded a finding of fact that the lands did not vest in the State as on the appointed date i.e. 1-3-1974 and regard being had to the jurisdiction for grant of land, circumscribed by Section 77-A of the KLR Act with the mandate of vesting of lands in the State, and that no enquiry can be held over claim of tenancy rights of the alleged tenant as on the appointed date, since that is the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal under Section 48-A of the KLR Act, rejected the applications, by order dated 19-1-2011. Petitioners unsuccessfully questioned the same in Appeal Nos. 898, 1008 and 1009 of 2011 respectively whence, the KAT, dismissed the appeals by the common orders impugned." 3. On 30th September, 2015, the following order was passed: "The thrust of the case of the petitioner-daughter-in-law of the person whose name is shown in the cultivator's column in the RTC Pahani, Annexure-D, in respect of land in question, is that entry is sufficient to establish vesting of the said land in the State under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act') as on 1-3-1974 as since her father-in-law did not make an application under Section 48-A to be registered as an occupant of the land, the daughter-in-law is entitled to maintain an application under Section 77-A of the Act for grant of the said land. Although, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously submits that the decision of the Division Bench and the Full Bench aids the case of the petitioner, at this juncture it is inappropriate to conclude vesting of the land, an event, which occurred on 1-3-1974, in the absence of an entry in the RTC Pahani against column (9) showing the name of the State, which entry would have been sufficient evidence of the factum of vesting. Learned Government Advocate submits that since the name of the State is not entered in column (9) of the RTC Pahani while it is the name of the owner that is mentioned therein, there is a dispute over whether land was vested in the State, hence, the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to grant the land under Section 77-A of the Act. Learned Counsel submits that parties would bring about an amicable settlement and seeks time. Re-list on 13-10-2015." 4. Learned Counsel submits that parties would bring about an amicable settlement and seeks time. Re-list on 13-10-2015." 4. Today learned Counsel for contesting parties submit that no settlement is arrived at. Learned Government Advocate submits that the lands having not vested in the State as on 1-3-1974 and not in possession of the State, there is no deemed vesting under Section 44 of the KLR Act, while revenue records disclose the name of the owner of the lands in column (9) in the RTC Pahani, while against the column relating to cultivator, the name of D'Crasta is mentioned, insufficient to support the plea of the act of vesting is a foregone conclusion, seeks to support the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and that of the KAT as being well merited, fully justified not calling for interference. 5. Although, learned Counsel for petitioners, contend that for the year 1968-69 and onwards upto 1980, the recording of the name of D'Crasta in the cultivators column, the inference is that he was tenant of the lands in question, having admittedly not filed an application under Section 48-A being registered as an occupant, nevertheless, his daughters-in-law-petitioners are entitled to grant of land under Section 77-A of the Act on the premise of a pre-concluded act of deemed vesting in the State, is noticed only to be rejected. In the absence of vesting of lands in question in the State on the appointed date i.e. 1-3-1974 under Section 44 of the KLR Act, the mention of the name of D'Crasta, against cultivators column in the RTC Pahani for the year 1968-69 onwards, by itself and nothing more, no inferential finding of deemed vesting in the State, a pre-concluded act, is permissible, and in the circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner and the KAT were fully justified in recording a finding of fact that petitioners did not acquire any right for grant of lands in question under Section 77-A of the KLR Act. The orders impugned do not qualify for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitions are rejected.