GOVINDA DEVADIGA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's application in form No. 7 under Section 48a (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961, for short Act, for being registered as occupant of 1 acre of land in S. No. 12/13a of kote village, Udupi Taluk and District was partly allowed by order dated 23-9-1981 Annexure 'b' of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights over 77 cents of land, which when called in question in a writ proceedings instituted by the landlord, was quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh over the extent of 77 cents. On remand, the Land Tribunal held an enquiry, considered the material on record including the evidence both oral and documentary and concluded that the land in question was not tenanted and that the petitioner was not a lawful tenant of the said land as on the appointed date and accordingly rejected the claim of the petitioner by the order dated 28. 10. 1998, Annexure 'a'. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) THE petition is opposed by filing statement of objection dated 23-1-1999 of the 3rd respondent landlord inter alia contending that the claim of the petitioner is speculative and in the absence of clinching evidence both oral and documentary to establish lawful tenancy, more appropriately in the light of the entries in the pahani RTC for the relevant years disclosing the name of the petitioner as the cultivator of the land in question, the findings recorded and the conclusions arrived at, do not call for interference. In addition it is contended that one Sanjeeva Poojary and bittu Serigara had applied for grant of ownership rights over an extent of 5 cents each in the very same survey number, on the premise that there existed two dwelling units being thatched houses, which the 3rd respondent conceded. It is denied that the petitioner is a sub-lessee under one menka Shetty who it is contended is a stranger and not a member of the family, Lastly it is contended that the lands in question are at a distance of more than 2 kilometers from mattu-Moodubettu village, where the petitioner resides and cultivates his own lands.

(3.) SRI Prakash Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the receipt dated 25-8-1974 for Rs. 50/- strongly suggests that the land was tenanted in favour of the petitioner and that the Land Tribunal tell in error in recording a finding that it did not amount to a lease of agricultural lands. Learned Counsel would characterise as perverse, the finding of the Land tribunal that there was no landlord and tenant relationship as between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.