RAMAKRISHNA UDUPA Vs. SUBHADRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal calls in question the correctness of an order passed by a single Judge of this Court, whereby Writ Petition no. 23176/1998, filed by Respondent Smt. Subhadramma, has been allowed and the order passed by the Land Tribunal, granting occupancy Rights in favour of the Appellant herein quashed. The appeal arises in the following circumstances:-Land measuring 2 acres and 13 guntas in Sy. No. 206 and 2 acres 29 guntas situate in Sy. No. 207, of Adda Village in Koppa taluk, was originally owned by one Vishnumurthy Bhatta, under whom the appellant held the entire extent as a tenant in cultivating occupation. By a sale deed executed on the 29th of December 1966 the ownership of the extent indicated above was transferred by the landlord in favour of the appellant tenant. The appellant in turn transferred an area measuring 2 acres and 2 guntas out of Sy. No. 207 in favour of the Respondent Smt. Subhadramma, under a Registered sale Deed executed in her favour for valuable consideration. The recitals of the Deed specifically recorded the transfer of the extent sold to the Respondent-purchaser. Some time later, a dispute as to she total area actually in occupation of the Respondent appears to have arisen between the parties, which was looked into by the assistant Surveyor of Land Records (ASLR), who found that the respondent was in possession of 2 acres and 10 guntas as against 2 acres and 2 guntas purchased by her. The Appellant was therefore driven to file original suit No. 2/1968, for a Decree for possession of 8 guntas of land unauthorisedly occupied by the Respondent. An application for appointment of a Commissioner to measure the extent of the land occupied by the Respondent was made before the Civil court, who appointed a Commissioner, with the consent of the parties. The Commissioner's Report prepared after a sport inspection and measurement of the land in the occupation of the parties disclosed that the Respondent was in possession of four and half guntas of land in excess of what had been purchased by her under the sale Deed executed in her favour by the "appellant. The dispute was eventually compromised between the parties in terms of a compromise Petition filed by them before the trial Court, culminating in the passing of the Compromise Decree dated 7th of August, 1979, under which the Respondent was required to give up possession of 4 and half guntas of excess land in her possession in favour of the appellant and retain only 2 acres and 2 guntas actually purchased by her with the coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the Appellant filed a claim in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the area transferred to the Respondent in terms of the sale Deed referred to earlier. The tribunal rejected the said claim by its order dated 18th of August, 1978, the correctness whereof was called in question by the Appellant before this Court in Writ Petition No. 12159/1978. By an order dated 3rd of June, 1983, while allowing the asid petition this Court quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter back to it for a fresh order. A Writ Appeal filed against the said order" by the respondent having been dismissed, the Land Tribunal proceeded to pass a fresh order, by which it granted the occupancy rights in favour of the Appellant in regard to the disputed extent of 2 acres and 2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 207. The correctness of the said order was challenged by the Respondent in Writ Petition No. 23176/ 1998, which was allowed by the single Judge of this Court by order dated 14th of January, 2000. The Court held that the claim made by the Appellant for grant of occupancy Rights was totally untenable in law, having regard to the fact that the land in question had been purchased by the Appellant from the original owner and transferred in favour of Smt. Subhadramma, for valuable consideration. It was of the view that since the land in question was not tenanted as on 1st of March, 1974, i. e. , the date when the Land Reforms Act, came into force, the question of granting or recognising any occupancy rights over the same did not arise. The filing of a claim by the appellant was in the opinion of the Court an abuse of the process of law and the conferment of occupancy Rights on the basis of the same, a perversity, which the Court could not countenance. Aggrieved by the said findings, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal, as already noticed earlier. Appearing for the Appellant Mr. Subramanya Jofs, strenuously argued the learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Land Tribunal. He argued that the jurisdiction of a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was limited to examining the correctness of the decision making process and not the decision itself. He urged that the learned single judge had assumed the role of an Appellate Court and upset the finings recorded by the Land Tribunal, upon a fresh appraisal of the relevant material which was wholly unnecessary and in excess of the jurisdiction exercisable by him. Judicial Review of orders made by those exercising administrative or statutory power is broadly speaking limited to finding out whether the decision making authority has,