ANIL PURUSHOTHAM GUJJAR @ MEHTS Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by the appellant/petitioner against the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. No.7299 /2004 (LR) dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The appellant had filed the said writ petition questioning the order dated 24.05 .2003 vide Annexure-B passed in No. KAR/SR/20 /74/Shendur by the Land Tribunal in and by which it was held that one Eshwar Mantu Lad (tenant) had been entrusted with a task of taking care of the trees on the land and was therefore entitled to be conferred with the occupancy rights.

(2.) The appellant contended that he is the owner in actual possession of the land bearing R.S.No.7 of Shendur Village of Chikodi Taluk, Belgaum District measuring 29 acres 9 guntas. That out of 29 acres 9 guntas, natural trees had grown in 28 acre of land and the remaining 1 acre 9 guntas was being cultivated by the appellant for all these years. That with the permission of the concerned department the appellant was cutting and removing the trees grown therein. That one Shri Eshwar Mantu Lad was protecting the trees and was also supervising and maintaining the land. He had been appointed as Guard (Rakawaldar) for protecting the trees and a kararpatra (agreement) had been executed in that regard in the year 1938. That during the life time of Eshwar Mantu Lad, he was only Rakawaldar and he was maintaining the said position throughout. After his death, his sons continued as Rakawaldars (Guards). Neither Eshwar Mantu Lad nor any of his sons cultivated the land at any point in time. As the land contained big grown up trees, there was no question of cultivating the said land. That Eshwar Mantu Lad had filed Form No. 7 claiming tenancy rights on the basis of the entries made in the record of rights. The Form No.7 filed by Eshwar Mantu Lad was rejected by the Land Tribunal on 28.09 .1981 holding that there was no tenancy right in respect of the said land for the purpose of granting occupancy rights. That the matter was carried in Writ Petition No.40252/1993 before this Court. This Court by order dated 21.11.1998 remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. That the Land Tribunal, Chikodi by its judgment and order dated 24.05.2003 granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 being legal representatives of Eshwar Mantu Lad (original applicant). Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 24 .05.2003, passed by the Tribunal on the premise that Eshwar Mantu Lad was only a Rakawaldar (Guard) and was not a tenant in respect of the subject land. The entries in the record of rights were without giving notice or opportunity to the appellant and the said entries had no presumptive value. That out of 29 acres 9 guntas of land, 28 acres consisted of naturally grown trees and there was no cultivation of land in any manner. That Eshwar Mantu Lad was only a Guard from the year 1938 and no evidence is produced to show that the land was being cultivated by either of Eshwar Mantu Lad or his successors. That there was no tenancy created between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 7 at any point in time. That no evidence was led in before the Land Tribunal to justify the claim of the land being cultivated as on 01.03 .1974. Hence, sought for setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 17.02.2021 dismissed the said writ petition holding that taking care of the trees and ensuring their growth is definitely an agricultural operation within the meaning of Section 2(10 ) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short " the Act, 1961 ") and that the said finding by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner/appellant has filed the present writ appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the records.