VENKATAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these revision petitions have been filed under Section 121-a of the K.L.R. Act and do arise from a common judgment and order dated 5-12-1988 passed, in irf/mys/appeal 84-88 allowing the appeal, by the land reforms appellate authority, mysore, after having set aside the Order, dated 2-6-1988 bearing No. K.l.rm. 1827/74 passed by the land tribunal, mysore, in the matter under Section 48-a(1) of the Land Reforms Act.

(2.) the brief facts of the case in nut cell are that the applications were filed under Section 48-a of the Karnataka land reforms act and had been moved by the present revisionist-applicant clalming occupancy rights with respect to land in dispute viz., sy. No. 23, the total area of which is 12 acres 33 guntas and out of which 1.7 guntas in karab land i.e. non-cultivable land. Both the petitioners by separate application clalmed rights under Section 48-a of the act with respect to 6 acres 20 guntas.

(3.) in l.r.r.p. No. 6430/88 the petitioner had clalmed the rights with respect to 6 acres 20 guntas, while in l.r.r.p. No. 6431/88 the petitioner clalmed his rights with respect to 6 acres 13 guntas i.e., in respect of entire 12 acres 33 guntas. The clalm of the revisionist-applicants was contested by the land owner viz., respondent No. 3 in both the cases. The parties filed documentary evidence and adduced oral evidence. The land tribunal considered the evidence of the parties and recorded the following findings: (a) that applicants i.e., the present revisionist are cultivating the land since 1969; (b) that there is no evidence to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant. The tribunal has held that the applicants failed to establish that whether applicants were the tenant under r-3 or whether tenants of narayana rao i.e., earlier owner prior to the sale in favour of the opposite party. It is not clear that prior to sale whether there was any agreement to give possession of the land. The tribunal in spite of the above finding held that the present applicants could have moved an application under Section 48-a clalming themselves to be the tenant of the landlord on the basis of deeming clause and observed that it is proved that the applicant had been cultivating the land prior to 1-3-1974 and so they are deemed to be the tenants of the landlord. Having applied the doctrine or concept of deemed tenancy the learned tribunal held that the applicants were entitled to the grant of the relief under Section 48-a of the act and as such allowed the claim and held them to be the occupants and tenants.