KOTY POOJARY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the appellant's learned advocate as also the learned GA on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Copy of the proceedings to be served on learned GA. The appellant's learned advocate vehemently submitted that there is a very serious breach of procedure in the present case resulting in prejudice to the appellant and his submission is that the learned Single Judge was definitely in error in having placed reliance on the RTC extract in question which pertains to the two lands in dispute. The reason for this was because the appellant's learned advocate submits that this particular crucial document was not produced during the original enquiry before the Tribunal despite which, the Tribunal being satisfied that the appellant was entitled to the grant of occupancy rights conferred the same. Before the Appellate Authority both the parties made an application for additional evidence. Along with the application the land owner is supposed to have produced the RTC extract and since the same was on record, the learned Single Judge relied on the same. The appellant's learned advocate has made a very serious grievance with regard to this and it is his submission that this is unfair to the appellant in so far as the appellant had no opportunity to refute this document and consequently, that the appellant had no opportunity to lead evidence for purposes of overcoming the document. More importantly the learned advocate submits that undoubtedly these documents have presumptive value but that it is well settled that it is a rebuttable presumption. His submission therefore was that at the highest, if the Court feels that the RTC should be looked into that the Tribunal should be directed to reconsider the claims of the parties after giving an equal opportunity to both sides to lead whatever evidence they desire. The learned ga has reminded us of the fact that the document relied upon by the learned Single Judge is not any other-document but happens to be the copy of the revenue record which document reflects the correctness as regards the holdings etc.

(2.) WE have carefully considered the submission canvassed beforeus. We need to take note of the fact that had any other evidence been relied upon without affording the opposite party an opportunity of overcoming it that we would have certainly upheld the objection. This is a case in which the RTC has been produced undoubtedly at the appellate stage. This is a document of some consequence which would normally inspire confidence and is the strongest and most reliable evidence on which a forum normally would rely. It is not as though the appellant produced any material before the learned Single judge even for purposes of prima facie indicating that the contents of that document are either wrong or unreliable. Had that been so, and had the Tribunal not assigned reasons then perhaps the objection would have merited some importance. Merely stating that for some academic reasons the case should be remanded and at this late stage, the appellants be given an opportunity of reopening the factual position as obtained in the year 1974 is in our considered view, not good enough. No useful purpose would be served by any such remand and consequently, we are not inclined to uphold this objection.

(3.) ANOTHER perhaps technical objection was raised before us where in the appellant's learned advocate produced the Death certificate of the original R1 and pointed out that he had died in the month of February 2000 whereas the learned Single Judge decided the proceeding in the month of September 2000. The submission was that an order has been passed against a dead person. At the stage when the Writ Petition was challenged parties were represented and the Court has proceeded on the basis of the record. Secondly, it was never brought to the notice of the Court that one of the parties had died. We have also taken note of the fact that the objection would only be of technical significance because even if this fact had been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge all that would have been required was to bring on record the LRs of R1 and to thereafter proceed with the case on merits. The Record would have remained unaltered. Having regard to this position we refrain from upholding the technical objection which in our considered view would not have altered the decision at all.