NANDAMMA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arising out of the order dated 11.9.2003 passed in W.P.No.43770/2002 [LR] by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the appellant has assailed the legality and correctness of the order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the first respondent-Land Tribunal.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are as under:- Deceased Late Bandagisab has filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights, in respect of the land baring Sy.No. 179 measuring 7 acres 7 guntas situated at Kodekal Village, Shorapur Taluk, known as ?Gaddi Hola? for the relevant agricultural year 1970-71 to 1974-75. In view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, he has filed Form No.7 in the prescribed form seeking registration of occupancy rights. THE said application filed by the deceased Late Bandagisab, represented by respondents No.2(a) & 2(b) has come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal in proceedings No.LRT:07/86/80/75-76 and LRY:07/86/75-76. THE occupancy rights have been registered in favour of the deceased Late Bandagisab by its order dated 5.9.1980 by the Land Tribunal, Surpur. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the owner late Sangappa was filed W.P.No.18265/1980. THE said writ petition filed by the erstwhile owner of the land in question was allowed and the matter remitted back to the Tribunal for re-consideration by order dated 17.7.1981 by the learned Single Judge of this Court After remand, the matter was took up for consideration by the Land Tribunal by its order dated 31.12.1981. THE order has been passed and occupancy rights have been registered in favour of deceased Late Bandagisab. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 31.12.1984 passed by the Land Tribunal, the appellant herein has filed W.P.No.25246/1999, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is set aside and re considered on the sole ground that, the appellant claims that, he has purchased the land from the erstwhile owner deceased Sangappa on 30.8.1980. THE said matter was allowed and order passed by the Land Tribunal is set aside and the matter remitted back to the Land Tribunal for re-consideration afresh after affording opportunity to all the parties. After remand, the Tribunal took up the matter for consideration after affording the opportunity of hearing to all the parties. After going through the records, the Chairman of first respondent-land Tribunal has opined that Late Bandagisab has failed to establish that he was cultivating the land in question as on 1.3.1974. Hence, he was not entitled for occupancy rights, on the sole ground that no presumption could be attached to the entries made in the record of rights as those entries are not preceded by the Mutation entry as Mutation entry is a condition precedent to enter the name of the persons in the record of rights for the relevant year 1970-71 to 1974-75, but whereas the majority members of the Land Tribunal after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and relevant material in the file and documentary evidence and relevant material in the file and after following the due procedure envisaged under Rule 17(8) & 17(9) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, recorded a finding of fact, holding that, Bandagisab was cultivating the said land as tenant and he is entitled for registration of occupancy rights. Being not satisfied with the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 29.10.2002, registering occupancy rights in favour of the deceased Bandagisab, represented by R2(a) & R2(b) herein filed W.P. No. 43770/2002 (LR). THE said writ petition has come up for consideration on 11.9.2003. THE learned Single Judge after hearing both the sides, after re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on the file, has dismissed the writ petition, confirming the occupancy rights registered in favour of the tenant, after considering all the contentions taken by the appellant through his Counsel. Being aggrieved by the learned Single Judge order impugned, the appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal.

(3.) After careful consideration/submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence and after microscopic evaluation of the records, what emerges is that, infact the deceased Late Bandagisab has filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights dated 20.11.1975 claiming that, he is cultivating the said land as a tenant for the relevant period from 1970-71 and 1974-75 to establish his evidence before the Tribunal and in consonance with the entries found in the RORs for the years 1970-71 to 1974-75. This fact is not disputed by the appellant Mr.M.B. Naragund that, the entries found in RORs has got no presumptive value under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act and the entry does not support the certification of mutation entry from the competent authority as envisaged under the relevant provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is significant to note that, the entry found in column No.12(2) of RORs establish beyond reasonable doubt that in column No.12 name of Late Bandagisab recorded for the agricultural years 1970-71 to 1974-75. Further, it is pertinent to note here itself that, the mode of cultivation is shown as ?4?. ? ?tenant?. This indicates that, he as cultivating the land as a tenant on the relevant day i.e., as on 1.3.1974. This fact has been rightly considered and appreciated and assessed by the majority members of the Land Tribunal and recorded a finding of fact holding that, the land in question was vested with the Government as on 1.3.1974. Hence, tenant is entitled for registration of occupancy rights. The said reasoning given holding that, the deceased tenant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, he is cultivating the said land as a tenant has been rightly considered strictly as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and registered the occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal also confirms the order of the learned Single Judge strictly in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the Rules and well founded, interference by this Court does not call for.