PUTTA MADAPPA Vs. SUBBAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein claiming to be tenant, being aggrieved by the order dated 27th July, 1989 in appeal No. DALR:aa:g:435/87 on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate authority, Nanjangud, setting aside the order dated 30th July, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, gundlupet, in proceedings No. LRF 13/74-75, has presented the instant land reforms revision petition.

(2.) PETITIONER herein claiming to be a tenant had filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Survey Nos. 404/2 and 1/1 measuring 11 guntas and 2 acres 8 guntas respectively, situate in Maralapura Village, Gundlupet Taluk. The application filed by petitioner had come up before Land Tribunal, Gundlupet on 15th June, 1982 and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Land tribunal, Gundlupet, the first respondent herein filed the Writ Petition No. 74 of 1983 before this court and this Court, allowed the writ petition filed by first respondent and set aside the order passed by Land Tribunal dated 15th June, 1982 and remitted the matter back to Land Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. After remand, the Land Tribunal took up the matter again for reconsideration on 30th July, 1987 and the Land Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has granted the occupancy rights in favour of petitioner, only in respect of Sy. No. 1/1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas, by majority opinion of the members of the land Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 30th July, 1987, the first respondent herein has filed the appeal on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate authority, Nanjangud ('appellate Authority' for short), in No. DALR:aa:g:435/87. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Authority on 27th July, 1989. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Authority, by giving cogent reasons with reference to credible documentary evidence at paragraphs 8 and 9 of its order, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by Land Tribunal, Gundlupet. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 27th July, 1989 in Appeal no. DALR:aa:g:435/87, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant land reforms revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri Purushothama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, for considerable length of time. After careful evaluation of the original records available on file, threadbare and after perusal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority, it emerges on the face of the order passed by Appellate Authority that, the Appellate Authority has not committed any error or material irregularity in passing the impugned order. In the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it emerges on the face of the said order that, it has been passed after reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, holding that, petitioner has failed to establish that, he was cultivating the land in question as on 1st March, 1974 and three years prior to that date since his cultivation was on the basis of the registered Mortgage Deed. The Appellate Authority has specifically referred that, petitioner has not produced any lease deed, or receipt for actual payment of 'wara' to first respondent or to any landowner. No documentary evidence in support of payment of 'wara' is forthcoming in the entire original records. Further, the Appellate Authority has specifically referred that, it is seen from the recitals of the mortgage that, on the day of the mortgage, the petitioner herein had obtained possession of the land agreeing to deliver back the land after six years because it was a self-redeeming mortgage. The Appellate Authority has disbelieved Ex. B. 1 and given a specific finding holding that, the land in question is not a tenanted land, by assigning valid reasons. It has observed that, in the RTC Extract, from the agricultural years 1970-71 upto 1974-75, the name of petitioner herein is shown as cultivator but in column (10), it is stated that, he is cultivating on the right of self-redeeming mortgage and so also his name is entered in column (9) of the said rtc. This fact clearly indicates that, the petitioner was no doubt in possession and cultivation of the land in question even as on 1st March, 1974, but his possession and cultivation was not that of a tenant, but that of a mortgagee in possession of the land. Further, the Appellate Authority has observed that, there was absolutely no material placed by the petitioner to demonstrate that, at no point of time earlier to the date of mortgage, he was in possession of the said land, since the mortgage deed dated 12th October, 1964, which lapsed on 12th October, 1970. Further, it reveals from the original records that, first respondent herein had issued a notice dated 3rd April, 1975 to the petitioner calling upon him to deliver possession of the land since the mortgage deed expired on 12th October, 1970. This shows that, petitioner had claimed his rights as mortgagee in possession. Therefore, the reasons assigned by Appellate Authority at paragraphs 8 and 9 of its order are just and proper. Hence, I do not find any justification or good grounds to interfere in the instant revision petition. Therefore, interference in the well-considered order passed by appellate Authority is uncalled for.