BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal assails the correctness of an order dated 1. 2. 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 24197/1998. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the Writ petition in question and confirmed the order of the Tribunal. It is relevant to point out that in this case the Tribunal had rejected the application for the grant of occupancy rights which had been preferred by the present appellant. We propose to confine this order only to those of the facts and issues that are strictly germane for the purpose of this appeal.

(2.) THE dispute relates to Survey No. 96 measuring 11 acres and22 guntas of Hullatti village in Haliyal Taluk. What is unusual in this cases is that the appellant contends that he was originally inducted into the land in the year 1965 and that a 'naukarnama' was executed by the then owners. This document is on record and we need to briefly record that the document states that the appellant has been engaged as a worker on an annual remuneration of Rs. 600/ -. There is a very unusual statement towards the end of this document which mentions that the appellant is not to inform anybody else, that he is a tenant/ryot On 16. 1. 1967 the land in question was sold to the present owners by the then owners under a registered sale deed. Sometime thereafter the new owner filed a suit against the appellant for injunction simpliciter. This suit was withdrawn and another suit was filed wherein the relief asked for was for possession and consequential injunction orders. It appears that the appellant contested that suit and took up the plea of tenancy. Among other documents, the appellant produced three rent receipts in support of his contention, that he was a tenant and therefore entitled to protection and was not liable to be evicted. The Court finally decreed the suit and the appellant carried the case further. In view of the land Reforms Act and considering the fact that a plea of agricultural tenancy had been set up, the Court took the view that the issue regarding tenancy would have to be referred to the Tribunal for adjudication and that is how the Land Reforms Tribunal ultimately came into the picture.

(3.) THE Tribunal after hearing the parties, rejected the claim forgrant of occupancy rights and one of the reasons for this was the naukarnama that was on record. The Tribunal after a careful consideration of the material placed before it held that the appellant was inducted as an employee and that he was not eligible for the grant of occupancy rights insofar as there was no tenancy created in his favour. The Tribunal obviously went by the state of the record which did not support the appellant's plea of tenancy insofar as even the relevant revenue entries did not conclusively indicate that he was eligible for the grant of tenancy rights. It was against this decision that the appellant filed a Writ Petition before this Court. The learned single Judge again after hearing the parties held that the appellant did not qualify for the grant of occupancy rights and one of the main grounds on which the learned Single Judge took this view was because in the course of the hearing before the Tribunal though the appellant sought to rely on the three rent receipts in support of his plea of tenancy, he did not produce the original documents which had been filed before the Civil Court but only produced certified copies thereof. The learned Single Judge took a strict view of the procedural requirements and refused to attach any credibility to these copies and accordingly confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is directed against this order.