YALLAWWA KURI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 19-7-1988 in Appeal no. L. R. A. No. 366 of 1986 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad district, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti in proceeding No. TNC:sr:28:76-77, dated 7-12-1978, have presented this land reforms revision petition.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners in this revision petition is that, one Sri Late Gundappa who is none other than husband of the first petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner, claiming to be the tenant, had filed Form 7 on 12-12-1975 for registering the occupancy rights in his favour. The said Form 7 is available in original records. In Form 7 he has stated that, Sy. No. 22/2 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas, out of which, 6 guntas of phot karab and he has purchased the land measuring 1 acre 26 guntas, under agreement of sale on 20-7-1970; Sy. No. . 22/1 measuring 2 acres, out of which, 6 guntas of phot kharab and he has taken the remaining land of 1 acre 34 guntas, on lease for a period of 99 years on 2-12-1971 and Sy. No. 38/1 and Sy. No. 38/2 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and 1 acre 25 guntas, respectively, were purchased by him. Further, he stated that, all these lands are situated at Nelogal Village, Hullur Post, Shirahatti Taluk and requested the Land tribunal to register the occupancy rights in his favour. The said application filed by the deceased gundappa, now represented by the petitioners herein, had come up for consideration before the tribunal, Shirahatti on 7-12-1978. The Land Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and in view of the admission made by the 1st petitioner that, the said lands were not cultivated by her at no point of time as a tenant, but she is cultivating the said lands on the basis of agreement for sale, rejected the Form 7 filed by one Sri gundappa on 7-12-1978. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 7-12-1978 passed by the land Tribunal, Shirahatti, petitioners have filed writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 20472 of 1983. When the said writ petition was pending before this Court, in view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the Appellate Authority has been constituted and in view of the constitution of the Appellate Authority, this Court by its order dated 25-11-1986 has transferred the said writ petition to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad and renumbered as L. R. A. No. 366 of 1986. The Appellate Authority, after conducting enquiry in strict compliance of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Appellate Authority) Rules, 1986 and after careful perusal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti, declaration given by deceased Sri Gundappa claiming to be tenant in Form 7 and other entries found in relevant RTC extracts, has given a specific finding that, the lands in question were inam lands and petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that, they are cultivating the said lands as tenants and the said lands have been regranted by the Competent Authority and until and unless they are regranted by Competent Authority, occupancy rights cannot be granted as they are inam lands and dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, shirahatti. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti and Land reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad, as referred above, the petitioners felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition.

(3.) THE principal ground urged by the petitioners in this revision petition is that, orders passed by both the authorities are contrary to the law and facts of the case besides being arbitrary; the authorities have gravely erred in rejecting Form 7 filed by deceased Gundappa; the authorities have failed to consider the registered lease deed in favour of the petitioners and deceased Sri gundappa was illiterate and innocent and he did not know about the worldly affairs, as he was a permanent tenant over the properties he must have thought that he has become the owner of the petition properties. Further, it is specifically contended that, the very fact that, the deceased Sri gundappa had filed Form 7 itself goes to shows that, deceased Sri Gundappa was a tenant and the reasoning given by the Appellate Authority is that, lands are inam lands and hence no occupancy rights could be granted unless the lands are regranted. The said reasoning is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Therefore, they contended that, both the orders are liable to be quashed consequently the occupancy rights should be granted to the petitioners.