PRAKASH ANANT KAMAT Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the landlord. He has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 6-3-2003 passed by Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3 to 6 jointly in respect of an extent of 4-18-0 in the land bearing Sy. No. 114 of Heggekoppa village in Siddapur Taluk.

(2.) MR. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law as the entries in the R. T. C. shows the name of the petitioner continuously and the said entries have got presumptive value under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the findings recorded contrary to the same are erroneous. He placed reliance upon the decision reported in 1977 (1) Kar. L. J. 263 (HIRE MASUDI IMAM (JAMIA MASJID) VS. LAND Tribunal, SHIRGUPPA ).

(3.) I have perused the impugned order. It reveals that in Order to find-out the factual position, it was decided to conduct spot inspection but the landlord refused to sign. The spot inspection was conducted on 15. 2. 2002 and on that day the landlord and his counsel remained absent. Spot inspection was conducted in the presence of certain villagers. The statements of Channa Adavi Naik and Dharma Mooka Naik, who are the adjacent land owners, was obtained. They have stated that the applicant and his legal representatives (respondents 3 to 6) have been cultivating the land since about 35 years and that the landlord never cultivated the land. The 5th respondent in his evidence has stated that since about 40 years they are cultivating the land. That apart, the evidence adduced by the applicant on 30-10-1981 remained and unchallenged as he was not cross-examined by the landlord. It is also in the evidence that the landlord settled long back in Bangalore and is engaged in hotel business. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the landlord himself was cultivating the land personally. The R. T. C. entries have been rebutted by the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant and the same is corroborated by the statements of adjacent land owners. Therefore, the land tribunal has not attached any presumptive value to the entries in the R. T. C. and rightly concluded that the land is tenanted and the applicant and his legal representa-tives are tenants of the same, the conclusion arrived at by the land tribunal is based upon the proper appreciation of the material brought on record and the finding of the fact finding authority does not warrant interference by this Court. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner. The reliance placed on the unreported decision of this Court in WA No. 2425/99 in the operative portion regarding not placing reliable upon the statement of petitioners father is of no relevance to annual the findings of the impugned order.