SREE GANAPATHI DIETY Vs. SATHYABHAMAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the deity challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, by which, occupancy rights have been conferred on Narayana Bhat.

(2.) It is not in dispute that in the revenue records from 1969-70 to 1997-98, in the cultivator's column, it is stated as villagers. This entry is also relied upon by the petitioner's counsel. This indicates that the deity or a person representing the deity was not in personal cultivation of the land in question.

(3.) The Land Tribunal, in its order, has noticed that the tenant had deposed that he was giving one quintal of areca nut as rent and had obtained rent receipts from the landlord and the same had also been produced at Exs.P7 and P8 before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal also noticed that the RTC in respect of 1960-64 contain the name of the tenant and there was a rent agreement dtd. 13/6/1965 in favour of the tenant which was also produced before the Land Tribunal. The fact that there was a rent agreement of the year 1965, coupled with the fact that the revenue entries from the year 1960-64 were standing in the name of Narayana Bhat/tenant and that he had also produced two rent receipts for having paid the rent, leads to an inference that Narayana Bhat was in possession of the land as a tenant.