MATADABASAIAH Vs. GOWDARA NANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the rival tenant's revision challenging the order of the Land reforms Appellate Authority, Shimoga District, Shimoga in No. LRA (W)749 of 1986, dated 27-10-1988 rejecting Form 1 by setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, Shimoga in No. INA 9, 10 of 1979-80 and vkp 23 and 24 of 1983-84, dated 17-4-1986. The lands in Sy. Nos. 3, 6/2, 20 and 41/2 situated at Venkatapura Village are the Inam lands endowed to Sri Kudli Rameshwara Devaru. In respect of the said lands, the applicants by name Sri Subbaraya, Gowdara Nanjappa, Matada basaiah and Smt. Vrundamma filed applications for grant of occupancy rights. Subbaraya filed Form 1 claiming to be an Inamdar to the entire extent of 27 acres 29 guntas in the above survey numbers. Gowdara nanjappa also filed Form 1 claiming 2 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 41/2 as a tenant under the temple. The present petitioner Matada Basaiah also filed application for grant of occupancy right as tenant under Subbaraya in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 6 guntas. Another person Manjappa, husband of Vrundamma also filed an application for grant of occupancy right in Sy. No. 41/2 to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. The land Tribunal by its order dated 11-9-1981 granted occupancy right in favour of Gowdara Nanjappa to the extent of 2 acres 6 guntas and in respect of other applicants who are not parties in this petition. The said order was questioned by the present petitioner in W. P. No. 17043 of 1983 before this Court. This Court, insofar as it relates to Sy. No. 41/2 quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and remitted back the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Land Tribunal took up the matter for consideration by permitting the parties to lead evidence, recorded the evidence of Manjunatha, A. Subbaraya, Gowdara Nanjappa, vrundamma and the evidence of the petitioner-Matada Basaiah. After considering the report and the entries made in the property and income of Muzrai Institutions maintained in the Taluk Office and also the entries found in the quit rent register, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 17-4-1986 granted occupancy rights in favour of Matada Basaiah to an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas and an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Smt. Vrundamma. The order of the Land Tribunal was questioned by Gowdara Nanjappa, who is respondent 1 in W. P. No. 9587 of 1986 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 29-9-1986 transmitted the records to the Appellate Authority, Shimoga in view of the amendment and the same was registered as LRA (W) No. 749 of 1986 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by its order dated 27-10-1988 allowed the appeal of Gowdara Nanjappa setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 17-4-1986 insofar as it relates to an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas which was conferred in favour of Matada Basaiah. Being aggrieved of the order of the Appellate authority, the petitioner who is a rival tenant has come up with this revision.

(2.) THIS revision is confined by both the contesting parties i. e. , the revision petitioner as well as the respondent 1-Gowdara Nanjappa to the extent of 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy. No. 41/2-A and there is no dispute insofar as the other extents of lands are concerned. Hence, this revision is confined only to Sy. No. 41/2-A measuring 2 acres 26 guntas.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner represented by Smt. Vidya, vehemently contended that the Appellate Authority has erred in interfering with the finding of the Land Tribunal insofar as grant of occupancy right in favour of the petitioner-Matada Basaiah is concerned. It is secondly contended that the Inamdar viz. , Subbaraya, who was the grandson of Venkataramana Shastri has clearly stated that it is the petitioner-Matada Basaiah who was the tenant in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy. No. 41 and also relied on Ext. P. 1 and submitted that the Land Tribunal considering the entire evidence of the parties has clearly held that it is the petitioner who is the tenant and the entries found in the RTC only for a period of 4 years from 1969 upto 1972-73 cannot be relied in view of the clear admission of Subbaraya Shastri. He further submitted that though there are no materials to hold that respondent 1-Gowdara Nanjappa was the tenant and also it has not come out under whom he is claiming the right of tenancy and that he has not produced any documents to prove his tenancy and that the Land Tribunal has rightly granted occupancy right in favour of matada Basaiah. Therefore, the finding of the Appellate Authority relying only on the RTC extract for the relevant period and setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal is not proper. Therefore, prayed to allow the revision by confirming the order of the Land Tribunal dated 17-4-1986.