A SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 31st October, 1989 in Appeal No. LRA. (TT) 1816/86 MAN on the file of the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dakshina kannada, Mangalore, allowing and setting aside the order passed by 11th Land Tribunal, mangalore, Dakshina Kannada in LRT. (VSL. 38), dated 17th October, 1981, has presented the instant revision petition.

(2.) THE petitioner claiming to be tenant and cultivating the land along with his family members in land bearing Sy. No. 381/2 measuring 22 scents from the year 1926 as tenants and that, they are paying 'geni' to the third respondent herein regularly, had filed Form 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question. The said application had come up for consideration before the 11th Land Tribunal, Mangalore on 17th October, 1981 and the Land tribunal, Mangalore, after conducting enquiry, has conferred the occupancy rights in favour of petitioner. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by Land Tribunal, Mangalore, the third respondent herein filed Writ Petition No. 23677 of 1982 before this Court and when the said writ petition was pending adjudication before this Court, in view of the amendment brought of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was constituted and the said matter was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dakshina kannada, Mangalore and was numbered as Appeal No. LRA. (TT) 1816/86 MAN and the Land reforms Appellate Authority, Mangalore (hereinafter called "appellate Authority") after conducting enquiry has passed the impugned order dated 31st October, 1989 rejecting the claim of the petitioner holding that, he is not cultivating the said land as tenant and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the appellate Authority in setting aside the order passed by Land Tribunal, Mangalore, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsels appearing for respondents. After careful evaluation of the entire original records available on file, threadbare, including the order passed by Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mangalore, it emerges on the face of the records and the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mangalore that, the said authority has committed a grave error much less material irregularity in setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, and holding that, the petitioner is not at all cultivating the land and an extent of 19 cents has been executed through lease for residential purpose and not for agricultural purpose including the open space. It is significant to note that, the said reasoning given by the Appellate Authority at paragraphs 8 and 9 are contrary to the relevant material evidence available on file. From the records available on file, it reveals that, petitioner has adduced the evidence and produced several documents to substantiate his claim that, he is a tenant. He has produced the lease deeds executed by the predecessors of petitioner with the predecessors of third respondent which are dated 25th July, 1926, 25th July, 1938 and 15th January, 1946 and the title of one of the lease deed dated 15th January, 1946 reads thus:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . and in the said lease deed, the revenue survey number, including the open space, the standing trees, etc. , is included. After careful reading of the recital of the said lease deeds, it can be said that, they were used as 'genicheetu' and accordingly, the third respondent himself has issued the receipts for the years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1973-74 and that petitioner has also been paying tax towards the house to the municipality and he has paid the assessed rent of the house and those original receipts issued by the third respondent and the receipt for payment of assessment issued by the Village Accountant are very much available in the original records from red ink pages 11 to 35. This aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the Appellate Authority nor any finding is given on the said receipts issued by the third respondent in favour of petitioner. When such a clinching documentary material was very much available in the original records before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority was not right in proceeding to set aside the order passed by Land Tribunal and coming to the conclusion that petitioner was not a tenant as on the relevant date, i. e. , 1st March, 1974. The Appellate Authority has erred in coming to the conclusion that, payments are made on rent basis and not on lease basis. The words used in the receipts makes amply clear that, the third respondent used to receive the payments from petitioner herein regularly towards 'geni babtu' which means 'amount received towards lease'.