S C CHANDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant herein in Form 7-A under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961 (for short, the Act' ). The appellant claiming to be the tenant of agricultural lands comprised in Survey No. 263/3 measuring 11 guntas, survey No. 263/4 measuring 3 guntas, Survey No. 326/1 measuring 10 guntas and Survey No. 335/6 measuring 18 guntas, all situate in siddaghatta Village, KR. Pet Taluk, Mandya District made an application in Form 7-A under Section 77-A of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, pandavapura Sub-Division who is the original authority, having conducted an enquiry by his order dated 17-7-2003 dismissed Form 7-A application filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant commissioner, the appellant preferred Appeal No. 951 of 2003 to the karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal' ). The tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Hosabayya Nagappa Naik and Others v State of karnataka and Others, and having opined that the three conditions necessary for granting relief under Section 77-A of the Act did not exist, dismissed the appeal, by its order dated 24th September, 2003. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal preferred Writ Petition No. 44484 of 2003. Learned Single judge of this Court, too, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in Hosabayya Nagappa Naik's case, and without finding any flaw in the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the tribunal, dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 16th February, 2005. Hence, this writ appeal by the aggrieved writ petitioner.

(2.) WE have heard Sri B. M. Krishna Bhat, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri N. S. Sanjay Gowda, learned Counsel for the third respondent and Sri Deshraj, learned Government Advocate.

(3.) SRI B. M. Krishna Bhat, with his usual persuasiveness and vehemence would, at the threshold, point out that the Assistant commissioner as well as the Tribunal have rejected the application of the appellant in Form 7-A solely on the ground that in the record of rights and pahanis of the lands as on the appointed date, i. e. , on 1-3-1974, the name of the appellant is not shown as tenant-cultivator of the schedule land. The procedure adopted by the Assistant commissioner, according to Sri Krishna Bhat, is perfunctory and in total violation of the clear mandate contained in sub-section (1) of Section 77-A. Sri Krishna Bhat would draw our attention to the obligation cast on the authorised officer to hold an enquiry to find out whether the three conditions incorporated in sub-section (1) of Section 77-A exist or not. Sri krishna Bhat would also contend that fair opportunity was not given to the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner in the conduct of the enquiry and he was not given reasonable opportunity to produce evidence particularly documentary evidence such as gheni chit. It was also contended that though the gheni chit was produced before the tribunal, the Tribunal did not take that document into consideration in the way it should have done in the decision-making. Sri Krishna Bhat would also contend that the opinion of the Division Bench in the case of hosabayya Nagappa Naik cannot be regarded as good law in the light of the statutory provisions contained in Section 77-A of the Act. Sri krishna Bhat would conclude by submitting that the perfunctory enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal has resulted in failure of justice and, therefore, a case is made out for this court to step in under Article 226 to do justice to the appellant. Sri N. S. Sanjay Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for third respondent, per contra, while supporting the reasons assigned by the Assistant commissioner would point out that though sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner to produce documents in support of his case, the appellant did not avail of that opportunity and did not produce any document in support of his case. It was also contended that the so-called gheni chit sought to be produced before the Appellate Authority bears L. T. M. and, according to the third respondent, that is a concocted document. Sri Deshraj, learned government Advocate would support the order of the learned Single Judge.