BAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra-Court appeal arises out of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 5550 of 1993. The appellants are the writ petitioners who challenged the orders of the Land Tribunal, Gokak in respect of grant of occupancy rights relating to Block No. 183, measuring 12 acres 21 guntas of Sindikurbeta Village. In the earlier proceedings in Writ Appeal no. 1927 of 1983, it is submitted that the parties in the proceedings had compromised the matter and affidavits are also filed. The writ appeal came to be withdrawn with an understanding that the parties shall before the Land Tribunal enter into a compromise in the terms agreed between them at the stage of writ appeal. The respondents have also filed an affidavit before this Court in the earlier writ appeal that they have entered into a compromise and would make necessary petition before the Land Tribunal and had also averred in the affidavit filed that they are cultivating the land in question as only on mortgage basis and not as tenants. Despite such admission on the part of the respondents, it was contended by the Counsel for the appellants that the Land Tribunal was not proper in coming to the conclusion that the respondents are the tenants of the land in question and therefore, the grant of occupancy rights is bad in law. The learned Single Judge had found that the compromise entered into between the parties outside the Court had no effect, the writ appeal had in fact came to be withdrawn and no disposal of writ appeal was made on the basis of the compromise. It was also found by the learned Single Judge that the order of the Tribunal that the respondents were actually cultivating the lands as tenants and thus rejected the writ petition.

(2.) AFTER carefully going through the contentions of the Counsel for the appellants, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Even assuming for the moment that the respondents were cultivating the land only as mortgagees, it is evident from the material that there was no registered mortgage deed. In the absence of registered mortgage deed, the transaction entered into between the parties on unregistered document or on the oral say cannot give the legal character of a mortgage to such transaction. In law, it could only be assumed as a permissive possession on the part of the respondents and the possession being lawful permissive possession the respondents would come within the definition of "deemed tenant" under the Act. Further they are in such lawful possession as on 1-3-1974 as per the material and there does not appear to be any illegality on the part of the Land Tribunal in holding the respondents as tenants. This aspect of the matter is not considered by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. However the legal inference of respondents being deemed tenants under the Land Reforms Act becomes evident on the failure of the proof of legal transaction of mortgage. Therefore, the grant of occupancy rights to the respondents cannot be assailed as illegal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.