MOHAN BALAKU PATIL Vs. KRISHONJI BHAURAO HUNDRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before us made a claim for registration of occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Land Tribunal in a proceeding initiated under Section 48-A of the Act. The Tribunal by an order made on April 24, 1981 upheld the claim made by the appellants. The appellants and the respondent laid evidence. The Tribunal noticed that the mother of the appellants stated that the land in dispute was being cultivated by her husband, Balku Patil, over 30 to 35 years as a tenant and now it is in her possession and she was paying a rental or 6 bags of paddy and Rs. 50/-. The respondent deposed that he has purchased the property in dispute for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- and he has been in possession of the land in question and has paid land revenue thereof. The Tribunal, in order to ascertain as to who was in possession on the date on which the Act came into force, i.e., March 1, 1974, made a spot enquiry on March 28, 1981. It was found that land was being cultivated by growing chilly, sugarcane, potato etc. which were standing on the land and on local enquiry it was also found that the property in dispute was being cultivated by the appellants and they have actually in possession of the same. The Tribunal noticed that a receipt dated April 10, 1950 had been issued by the owner of the land and Kabuliyat had also been made on the same date. Subsequently in the year 1956 the notice has been issued calling upon the tenant to give up possession of the land as the landlord require the same bona fide for his own cultivation. The documents thus indicated that the property in dispute was tenanted land. Subsequently in the record of rights in the year 1957 the name of Bharama, brother of the father of the appellant was deleted and it was shown that the land was under the personal cultivation of the owner. That entry did not show as to the circumstances in which the change was effected. The Tribunal found that the appellants were in actual possession of and were, in fact, cultivating the land and that there was material to show that the said land was tenanted land notwithstanding entries made in the Revenue records.

(2.) The Tribunal concluded that the property in dispute was in actual possession of the appellants and they have been cultivating the same since many years notwithstanding the subsequent entries in the Record of Rights. On appeal to the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the order made by the Land Tribunal was reversed and the appellants were found not to be lawful tenants of the land and set aside the order made by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to the mother of the appellants. In reaching this conclusion, the appellate authority did find that the possession of the land had been with the appellants. This was admitted by the respondent. It is also admitted by the respondent that the appellants had constructed a building on the land in dispute and had been paying electricity bills in respect of the charges arising for the electric pump set used for irrigating the land. However, the appellate authority found that the appellants have failed to establish that when the father and Bharma were residing as members of the joint family; that the disputed land was taken on lease; that in the partition of 1945 that land was allowed to the share of their father; and, that regarding the quantum of rent there had been some discrepancy in the evidence tendered by the mother, Sonu Bai. While one stated that the rent of four bags of paddy and Rs. 50/- was paid, Sonu Bai stated that six bags and Rs. 50/- was paid as rent and that on the basis of the record of rights showed that the appellants had not been cultivating the land and the respondent had been cultivating the land continuously from 1957.

(3.) The High Court, on a revision petition filed against the order made by the appellate authority, agreed with the findings of the appellate authority and dismissed the revision petition.