PAPEGOWDA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL PANDAVAPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Preliminary Hearing This writ petition is listed under 'B' group. Emergent notice regarding rule was ordered to be issued in the first instance. In pursuance of the notices issued, respondents 3 and 4, who are the contesting respondents, entered appearance through their advocate. They filed their objections. Respondents 1 and 2 remained unrepresented.

(2.) This Writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 1-1-1978 at Ext-C passed by the 1st respondent Land Tribunal, Pandavapura rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being registered as an occupant in respect of 1 acre 31 guntas of land comprised in S. No. 42/1 of K. Bettahalli village of Pandavapura Taluk in Mandya Dt.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition may be stated as under: The land in question and two other items of land comprised in S. Nos. 35/2 and 35/ 7 belonging to the family of respondents 3 and 4, was mortgaged with possession in favour of the petitioner Papegowda by Ningegowda, husband of the 3rd respondent and brother of the 4th respondent on 19-5-1960 for a sum of Rs. 1,000. After the death of Ningegowda, there was a partition in the family of respondents 3 and 4 on 14-3-1969 under which S. No. 42/1 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') fell to the share of respondent- 4 Basavaiah end S. Nos. 35/2 and 35/7 fell to the share of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner herein wag an attestor to this partition deed. On 15-3-1969, the 3rd respondent sold S.Nos. 35/2 and 35/7 to the petitioner herein. The mortgage was also redeemed on the same day. The petitioner herein made an application dated 31-12-1974, in Form-7 under S. 48A (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') claiming occupancy in respect of 1 acre 31 guntas of land comprised in S. No. 42/1 which fell to the share of the 4th respondent under the partition deed dated 14-3-1969. In the claim application, the petitioner mentioned respondent-3 as the owner of the suit land. He claimed tenancy for the past 16 years- The tribunal, after holding an enquiry, rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land as a mortgagee and after the mortgage was redeemed," the 4th respondent came, into possession of the suit land and was cultivating it personally. It is this order that is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Shri Basavaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, primarily contended that the order of the tribunal in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not correct as the tribunal did not consider two pieces of relevant material which was produced and relied upon by the petitioner in support of his case. They were; (1) the order-sheet in O.S. No. 199/1973 produced in this case as Ext-A, in which the petitioner herein was appointed as the receiver in respect of the suit land and (2) the record of rights in which the petitioner is shown to have been in possession of the suit land on the relevant date. Tt is his case that if the tribunal had considered these two pieces of material, it would have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land and from which the learned Advocate developed an argument stating that they would raise a presumption in favour of the petitioner that he was a tenant of the suit land.