RENUKA Vs. SIDAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these appeals are the legal representatives of one Shankar Gouda Patil. The controversy consists of claims for occupancy rights made by late Ramappa S/o. Gurappa Allapura (hereinafter called 'the tenant') under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and an application for resumption under S.15 of the Act made by one late Subhash, S/o. Shankar Gouda Patil, in respect of lands bearing R.S.Nos.50/1 measuring 7 acres 25 guntas and 26/1A measuring 5 acres 25 guntas, situated at Adaragunchi Village, Hubli Taluk. The material facts to the extent of those not in controversy are the following:

(2.) According to Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.V. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-legal representatives of the soldier, the resumption of land by the soldier being permissible under Section 15 of the Act, the soldier bonafide requiring the land to cultivate personally, having retired from Army on 31.07.1991, issued a notice to the tenant on 21.05.1992, requiring the tenant to deliver possession of the land. Learned counsel firstly contended that, Section 15 of the Act having not specified any prescribed form of notice or mode of effectuation of notice, the soldier having retired on 31.07.1991 and the notice having been issued on 21.05.1992, the presumption under Section 114 of Evidence Act ought to have been drawn, since the notice was posted and the fact likely to happen is that the same must have reached the addressee and hence, the Asst. Commissioner is justified in granting the relief to the soldier under sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that, the contrary finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is perverse and calls for interference. Secondly, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to accept Form No. 7 and issue Form No. 10 is in excess of jurisdiction and interference in the matter is called for.

(3.) Sri R.L. Patil & Sri H.N.M. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the tenant/contesting respondents, on the other hand submitted that, the statutory notice contemplated under Section 15 of the Act was not served and hence the learned Single Judge is justified in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that, there being no dispute of the lands having been leased to the tenant prior to 01.03.1974, the resumption was sought long after the lands vested in the State and there being no disputed questions to be enquired into and decided by the Land Tribunal, learned Single Judge is justified in directing the acceptance of Form No. 7 and to issue Form No. 10 to the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, by the Land Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge being justified, does not call for interference.