Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1106 (KAR)

Jayamma v. State Of Karnataka Ministry Of Revenue

2019-06-04

S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. The landlord of Sy.No.121/1 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas situate at Uragadur village, Shivamogga Taluk and District is one B.G.Ramappa, husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4 in first of the writ petitions - WP.No.32149/2011 (In fact, said B.G.Ramappa is owner of an extent of 3 acres 2 guntas (in some places it is stated as 3 acres 7 guntas) of land in Sy.No.121/1. However, since this petition is confined to tenancy claim of 1 acre 10 guntas, it is only that portion which is considered in this writ petition). 2. Petitioners in WP.Nos.2918-28/2012 are the purchasers of sites formed in the entire extent of 3 acres 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.121/1 which belonged to the 1st petitioner's husband in WP.No.32149/2011. 3. These writ petitions are filed challenging the order of Land Tribunal, Shivamogga, dated 8.8.2011 in proceedings bearing No.LRF(T)UDR.79/74-75, 47/83-84 and 49/83-84 which is at Annexure-D to the first writ petition and at Annexure-BK in the second batch of writ petitions. 4. Brief facts leading to these writ petitions are as under: The land bearing Sy.No.121/1 of Uragaduru village totally measures 5 acres 3 guntas with 25 guntas kharab in the said land. The material on record would indicate that the aforesaid land belonged to the family of Krishnaradya. Subsequently, his son Chandrashekar Aradya would execute a sale deed of 3 acres of land excluding kharab in said Sy.No.121/1 in favour of one Chowdappa s/o Bommanna under registered sale deed dated 5.6.1973. In the sale deed, he would clearly indicate that said land was re-granted to him in a proceedings initiated before the Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition of Hassan Division by order dated 13.9.1966 in proceedings bearing No.990.R.14/1961-62. Thereafter, he had given it to Chowdappa for cultivation and when said Chowdappa - tenant himself approached him for purchase of the said land, aforesaid sale deed dated 5.6.1973 is executed in his favour in conveying the title of the said property. 5. It is seen that said Chowdappa within two days sold the said extent of 3 acres of land to one B.S.Srinivasa Rao s/o Bistoo Rao under registered sale deed dated 7.6.1973. Thereafter, from said B.S.Srinivasa Rao, the husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4 in WP.No.32149/2011 B.G.Ramappa purchased the aforesaid extent of land under registered sale deed dated 27.1.1989. Thereafter, from said B.S.Srinivasa Rao, the husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4 in WP.No.32149/2011 B.G.Ramappa purchased the aforesaid extent of land under registered sale deed dated 27.1.1989. Subsequently, he secured conversion of aforesaid land from agriculture to non agricultural purpose, formed a residential layout and sold independent plots measuring various dimensions to petitioners 1 to 11 in WP.Nos.2918-28/2012. It is stated that the family members of B.G.Ramappa, petitioners in WP.No.32149/2011 have sold sites not only to the petitioners in second batch of writ petitions but also to various other persons, who have not approached this Court. 6. In the meanwhile, the contesting respondent in both the writ petitions, namely Narayanappa approached the Land Tribunal, Shivamogga, by filing Form No.1 seeking occupancy right to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.121/1 against original owner Chandrashekar Aradya s/o Krishnaradya. In the said proceedings, it is seen that Chandrashekar Aradya was made as a party where the application which was filed by him was initially rejected on the ground that the said application should have been filed in Form No.7 and not in Form No.1 as in the year 1983 the date for filing of the application seeking occupancy right in Form No.1 had expired, therefore, the said application was not maintainable. 7. Against the order of rejection of his application, Narayanappa - contesting respondent approached this Court in WP.No.25181/1994, which came to be disposed of by order dated 5.9.2002, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that since the Land Tribunal was the competent authority to decide Form No.1 filed seeking occupancy right under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act and also under the Land Reforms Act, it should have taken up and considered the same in view of the fact that landlord - Chandrashekar Aradya had secured re-grant of the said land under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act and accordingly, remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal. 8. 8. In the remanded proceedings, inspite of there being no document to show that there was Geni Chit in favour of applicant - Narayanappa and in the absence of his name being shown in the RTC at any point of time, merely on the basis of oral evidence recorded on behalf of applicant - Narayanappa as well as other persons who are said to be owners of adjacent lands and that of Chowdappa, the purchaser of land in question from Chandrashekar Aradya, the Tribunal considered the application of Narayanappa for grant of occupancy right to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas by order dated 8.8.2011, which is impugned in these writ petitions. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 10. The order of the Tribunal is impugned in these proceedings on various grounds, one of which is that, except the oral evidence in support of the claim of applicant - Narayanappa, no documentary evidence was placed on the file of the Land Tribunal to consider tenancy claim of said Narayanappa. Besides this, what is heavily relied upon in support of these petitions is the sale deed dated 5.6.1973 executed by Chandrashekar Aradya s/o Krishnaradya in favour of Chowdappa on 5.6.1973, which is a registered document executed much earlier to the amended provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act coming in to force and where the vendor has stated in clear terms that the land which was subject matter of Sale Deed i.e., 3 acres of land in Sy.No.121/1 of Uragada village was under cultivation of purchaser - Chowdappa as on the date of sale. Since Chowdappa was in possession and cultivation of the same, the said land was sold to him by Chandrashekar Aradya thereby establishing that immediately prior to the relevant provision of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act coming in to force, the person who was in possession and cultivation of the land was Chowdappa and not Narayanappa as contended by him. Since Chowdappa was in possession and cultivation of the same, the said land was sold to him by Chandrashekar Aradya thereby establishing that immediately prior to the relevant provision of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act coming in to force, the person who was in possession and cultivation of the land was Chowdappa and not Narayanappa as contended by him. In fact, though oral evidence is tendered by Narayanappa at a later stage by himself and through others, under what circumstances and for what reason it was tendered cannot be considered now inasmuch as the said oral submissions cannot have better weightage against the averments made in the registered sale deed which was executed immediately prior to the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act coming into force in providing a right to the tenants in occupation of the land to seek occupancy right in respect of said land based on their possession and cultivation at the time of cut off date. In this background, when all other evidences are looked into, the said oral evidence would pale into oblivion against the recitals in the registered Sale Deed. Therefore, much credence should not have been given to the said evidence of others as it would be self-serving for various other reasons. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order the impugned dated 8.8.2011 passed in proceedings bearing No.LRF.T.UDR.79/1974-75, 47/83-84, 49/83-84 conferring occupancy right to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in favour of Narayanappa - contesting respondent is without any basis and the same is hereby quashed by allowing these writ petitions. 12. Since the writ petitions are allowed, question of considering I.A.4/2012 for temporary injunction does not survive for consideration, hence disposed of accordingly.